Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VIVIAN CARRASCO
APPROVED:
&~j1. LJ,'~~6e'>-'
Patricia D. Witherspoon, P . .
Dean of the Graduate School
Copyright ©
by
Vivian Carrasco
2009
Dedication
To David V. Carrasco, you have made it possible for me to pursue
this dream- you are the love of my life and the foundation of my
success.
you pursue your own dreams. Being your mom has been my
greatest gift.
BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY ACROSS INSTITUTIONAL
FIELDS: A THEORETICAL DISSERTATION BASED ON A META-
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
by
VIVIAN CARRASCO
DISSERTATION
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2009
Acknowledgements
Acknowledging all those that made this possible is impossible, for every conversation,
every friendship, every experience has unfolded to this. I would however like to recognize my
mother and father, who instilled in me a love for knowledge and life. My father the original blue
collar scholar modeled the impact of knowledge. He read to experience the world. That love of
learning developed in me an insatiable thirst for knowledge that I continue to carry with me. My
mother an eccentric young soul who has taught me to be alive, every day until the day I die. My
Padrino’s who served and continue to serve as role models and mentors.
A special appreciation and gratitude goes to my committee chair, William Johnston, for
his guidance, support and encouragement. His advocacy on my behalf allowed me to participate
in this conversion allowing for the development of a deeper appreciation for scholarship. Thanks
is also in order to my committee members, I appreciate your time and commitment. May this be
v
Abstract
This dissertation study folds the existing empirical literature across a broad spectrum of
disciplines with the experience of a national collaboration between Fortune 500 corporations,
government agencies and the United States Army to explore the capacity and key competencies
organizational level. It explores the evolution of collaboration and maps the continuum of related
concepts, illustrating their distinction in a spectrum of IOC. It presents the collaboration process
ingredients for increasing collaborative capacity within individuals and organizations. The major
findings include; the role of knowledge, the necessity of engaging in constructive conflict and a
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................v
Abstract .................................................................................................................. vi
vii
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology .....................................................92
4.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................92
4.2 Research Questions ..............................................................................93
4.3 Case Study Methodology .....................................................................94
4.4 Validity and Reliability .......................................................................95
4.5 Data Collection Strategies...................................................................96
4.6 Data Analysis Procedures ...................................................................97
4.7 Summary ..............................................................................................99
Chapter 6: The Revised Collaboration Model, Implications and Suggestions for Further
Research ......................................................................................................137
6.1 Major Findings ...................................................................................138
6.2 Level of Knowledge ...........................................................................139
6.3 Constructive Conflict .........................................................................141
6.4 Dialectic Collaboration Model: Talk is the Work..............................143
6.5 Implications for Research and Practice..............................................146
6.6 Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................147
6.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................147
Vita…………… ...................................................................................................177
viii
List of Figures
Figure 6 Timeline……………………………………………………………….103
ix
Chapter 1: Introduction
“The modern global economy is characterized by a need to collaborate effectively across
national boundaries. This is as true of international alliances and networks between firms as it is
of teams within companies that cross cultural and geographic boundaries” (Child, 2001, p. 274).
The last two decades witnessed an increase in the frequency and magnitude of inter-firm
collaborations (Hladik, 1994; Contractor & Lorange, 1988). Inter-firm collaboration is “a major
topic of interest and relevance in the present organizational world.” (Smith, Carroll, & Ashford,
1995, p. 20). During the past decade, the wave of global mergers, acquisitions and strategic
alliances, plus the development of global networks, have multiplied the occasions when such
collaboration is required. Gray (1985) is likely to speak for many when she sees “a growing need
to promote collaborative problem solving across various sectors of society” (p.911). Austin
(2000) posits that the, “21st century will be an age of accelerated interdependence. Cross-sector
collaboration between nonprofits, corporations, and governments will intensify” (p. 69). On the
horizon of the twenty first century is the possibility to utilize the knowledge base of an entire
world across geographic and institutional boundaries. Getting global collaboration to work
This study reviews major theories of collaboration with the purpose of generating a more
comprehensive and powerful account of collaboration, a new synthesis of the research. The
theory to be developed will then be used in a case analysis of a major collaboration effort
1
1.1 Background
collaborative activity have been a fertile research topic for several decades. Early and basic
assumptions of America’s organizations and the structure of work are out of date (Drucker,
1998). Nevertheless, the general evolution of modern business continues to employ strategies
with a correspondingly greater demand for coordination, automatically creating a wider and
wider range of within-group and cross-group relationships (Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001). A
world that demands new forms of organizing other than traditional, hierarchical bureaucracies.
Successful business operations across a variety of industries will depend on the ability to
private, no longer have the information, skills, resources, or many of the other necessary
ingredients to function independently. Ronald Heifetz (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002), who directs the
University, coined the term “adaptive problems” (p. 68) to describe situations that do not lend
themselves to an expert’s solution, but require a variety of perspectives both to define the
Michael Fullan proposes, in his book, Change Forces (1993), that society…”expects its
citizens to be capable of proactively dealing with change throughout life both individually as
and a half of technological evolution [has] produced communication and technologies that make
2
our entire planet a global marketplace” (p. 4). This means that today’s firms deal with thousands
of interdependent relationships- linkages to people, groups, or organizations that have the power
to affect performance and the diversity among individuals and organizations is limitless. In such
an environment, there is great potential in partnerships that enable different people and
resolution to adaptive problems, a synthesis of the existing research across “institutional fields”
(Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1995) does not exist. I propose to sample the vast empirical
understand the phenomenon of collaboration. The purpose of this study is to provide a more
compelling theoretical understanding of IOC by taking a broad, holistic approach to explore the
context or conditions required to nurture IOC at the individual and organizational level.
Individual collaborative capacity can be defined as the knowledge, skills, and attitude
defined as the culture and processes required to support collaboration. A dual analysis of the
relationship between individuals at the senior, strategic and operations levels and the
relationships between organizations will reveal the key tenets required to increase collaborative
individual, the context, and the object. Understanding the importance of interdependence,
constructive human interaction and collaborative dialogue are the precursors of collaboration.
Furthermore, the wide range of theoretical perspectives that currently characterize collaborative
3
capacity, suffers from an overall lack of consensus among scholars and practitioners on the
meaning of its central construct: collaboration. This lack of consensus not only makes theory
building difficult, but also impedes the transfer of knowledge across institutional fields.
facilitate the discovery of knowledge that is useful to both researchers and practitioners. By
synthesize the findings of specialists and apply new solutions to problems. The scope of this
research and the ensuing literature review does not include the extensive and growing body of
research on relationships that are associated with ‘social networks’, ‘network theory’ and ‘social
capital’ as reflected in the work of Coleman (1988) and Burt (1992) among others. Although
these research traditions may at times be complementary and overlap some of the research
associated with IOC, social network and human capital approaches tend to remain too focused at
the individual and micro level and are only a small part of IOC theory. The literatures on
networks within organizations (e.g. virtual teams, network capacity within organizations, matrix
organizations) are therefore considered a minor component (Mandell, 2001) relative to the focus
of my research on IOC.
only the first part of collaboration's value. When collaboration facilitates learning at
organizational and individual levels, the solutions tend to be more innovative and more integrated
4
(Liedtka, Haskins, & Rosenblum, 1997). Collaborative capacity includes the development of
ways to build and strengthen relationships, an analysis of the way we communicate with one
another, and cultural characteristics that support collaboration. A theoretical integration, across
disciplines, of existing research about collaborative capacity could result in a more unified, and
The key purpose of this study is to explore and examine the concept of increasing
collaborative capacity across disciplinary boundaries and institutional fields. Common to all
organizations across fields is the human element. Rather than simply shift focus from the
enterprise that must be carried out by human beings. Moreover, human beings do
not exist simply as individuals; they are joined together in groups, small and
large, and they interact in these groups both as individuals and as groups.
Further, individuals can belong to many subgroups within a larger group, and to
isolation, but only in relation to other individuals and groups. Even when alone,
personal identity, beliefs and values, as well as social behavior, are conditioned
only a theory of systems of activities and their boundaries, but also a theory of
5
The research undertaken here attempts to answer the following questions:
1. What are the key processes to increasing collaborative capacity at the individual and
organizational level?
2. What are the key competencies required to support collaboration at the individual and
organizational level?
The interpersonal aspect and the interorganizational aspect are the two major dimensions of
collaborative activity. The ability to operate at both the interorganizational and the interpersonal
level simultaneously is at the core of collaborative capacity. Senge (1990) argues that
“Organizations learn through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee
IO domains requires a different approach to diagnosing problems (Kaplan, 1980; Alderfer &
Guzzo, 1979) and requires different methods of organizing stakeholders to work out
The organization and the individual are interdependent in an environment saturated with
adaptive problems. Kanter (2004) posits that teams and organizations that overcome challenges
and thrive on success rely on individual and organizational confidence. Her research shows
three factors critical to developing and sustaining confidence: accountability, collaboration and
there is no such thing as the one right organization. There are only organizations,
each of which has distinct strengths, distinct limitations and specific applications.
It has become clear that organization is not an absolute. It is a tool for making
people productive in working together. As such, a given organizational structure
fits certain tasks in certain conditions and at certain times. There are thus vast
6
differences in organizational structure according to the nature of the task. Yet
there are universal principles of organization (p. 6).
An understanding of the interconnection between the individual and the organization help
decision makers to create conditions that cultivate collaborative capacity despite institutional and
individual boundaries.
A Knowledge Broker is understood as a person with a strong technical base and communication
skills. Synthesizes and packages knowledge rather than creators of new knowledge (Kirke,
2002).
Lateral Thinking is the process of generating solutions to problems by exploring related ideas
that may at first seem irrelevant to a specific problem, but may in fact lead to new ways of
Tacit Knowledge is the conceptualization that you know more than you can say. According to
Michael Polanyi (1967) “there are things that we know but cannot tell” (p. 7) - We know how to
discriminate a complex pattern of things without being able to specify by what features we
Multiframe Thinking is the idea that concepts can be viewed through different frames. For
example, the business sector refers to collective intelligence while personnel in education refer to
cooperative learning.
and/or use existing decision rules that have been established to deal collectively with their shared
7
Collaborative Relation is between members of an organization in performing tasks jointly
individual must consider reward potential of others as well as recognize their own requiring
Multiparty Collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a
problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their
own limited vision of what is possible. Organizations, social groups and unorganized parties
work across boundaries to develop sustainable solutions for a problem domain (Gray, 1989).
Collaborative Inertia is when the apparent rate of work output from collaboration is slowed
down considerably compared to what a casual observer might expect it to be able to achieve. It
could result from difference in aim, language, procedures, culture and perceived power; from the
tension between autonomy and accountability and the lack of authority structure; and from the
time needed to manage the logistics (Huxham & Vangen, 1994; Huxham, 1996).
Alternative Terminology there are several concepts used to reference the inter-organizational
(Huxham, 1996).
Collaborative capital is the process and environmental assets that can be developed over time
Synergy is the power to combine resources and skills of a group of people and organization
(Fried & Rundall, 1994; Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001; Mayo, 1997; Richardson & Allegrante
8
terminology, definitions, agendas, assumptions and methodologies. A summary can be found in
Figure 1. The classical organization perspective emphasizes a concern for technical aspects of
the work, formal authority and centralized structure. According to it, organizational efficacy can
be best achieved with rational administrative procedures (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Clear and
unambiguous channels of authority that allow for centralized command and control are required
(Scott & Mitchell, 1976). Specialization and division of labor are thought to promote the
simplification of tasks and maximum work efficiency. Bureaucratic theory and administrative
management are also traditional organizational approaches. Lawler (1992) refers to the scientific
approaches.
The human relations movement began in the 1920’s with the experiments at the Western
Electric plant by Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939). Human relations advocates argue that high
performance can be achieved if employees are treated fairly, with respect, and allowed to
participate in decisions related to their work. The human resource perspective, like human
relations, proposes that employees should be treated fairly and cooperation with management
9
Figure 1: A Summary of Organizational Theories.
10
The economic perspective focuses on changing incentives while sociological approaches
look to social norms of fairness and reciprocity. Relational applications argue that internal
norms of reciprocity develop over time. Rational choice theorists focus attention on competition
and incentives in the absence of shared goals. Sullivan, Snyder, Sullivan & Chapp (2008)
propose that rational choice models are incomplete and often lacking sufficient understandings of
human behavior.
IOC has also been explained from a number of more limited, grounded theoretical
perspectives such as: evolutionary theory (Aldrich, 1976); industrial economics (Porter, 1985);
transaction costs (Oliver, 1990; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994.); game theory (Parkhe, 1993); new
institutionalism (Oliver, 1990; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994); and resource dependence theory
(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The concept of interorganizational domains (Gray, 1989) draws on
the theory of negotiated order (Strauss, Schatzman, Erlich, Bucher, & Sabsin, 1963). Emory and
Trist (1965) introduced the notion of turbulent environments, where problems characterized by
uncertainty, complexity and unclear boundaries are beyond the scope of a single organization to
solve; they call for inclusive (Warren, 1967) or collaborative (Gray, 1989) decision making
where organizations pool their expertise and resources (Trist, 1983). The multiparty
interorganizational relations and for research on the quality of collaborative relationships, the
processes (Czander, 1993; Gould, Ebers, & McVicker, 1999; Page, S., 2003). Wood and Gray
(1991) provide a summary of the theoretical contributions of the existing case study research
used to examine and explain collaborative behavior. They propose six theoretical perspectives:
11
management, social ecology, microeconomics, institutional and negotiated order and political.
They note that the key limitation of the existing theories is that, “most perspectives are oriented
Although each paradigm identified above is insufficient alone to capture the complexities
of collaboration, the fact that collaborative relationships can be justified from such diverse
integrationist perspective is that the responses of actors are conceptualized as a function of both
the attributes of the actors and their environment. Participants in a collaborative are confronted
with different sources of potential anxiety: the context, the nature of the process and the
a way of thinking about energizing or motivating forces resulting from the interconnection
between various groups and sub-units of a social system” (Neumann, 1999, p. 57).
(Neumann, 1999, p.57) within and between groups and organizations. It provides a way of
considering individuals, groups and organizations in relation to their environment. The systems
psychodynamic perspective originated at the Tavistock Institute in the UK (Miller, 1993), and
incorporates Freudian system psychoanalysis, the work of Klein on child and family psychology,
12
understanding of the concept of collaboration and an attempt to increase collaborative capacity at
the individual and organizational level. A typology of collaboration would make it easier to
compare and communicate results, and would be especially valuable if the types of collaboration
This study uses a single case study approach for understanding IOC theory and the
processes and competencies required at the individual and organizational level. Correlation,
are not the intent of this study and may not be valid.
Today organizations are continuously challenged to keep pace with rapidly changing
The following steps will be taken to answer the research questions posed in this study:
This current chapter introduces the problem, states the purpose of the research, and the context
for the study. Chapter Two examines the literature on collaboration and proposes a synthesized
conceptualization of IOC. Chapter three reviews the major competing theories of collaboration
Framework: The Systems Psychodynamic Perspective. Chapter Four presents the most
Chapter Five presents the case analysis exploring each of the research questions followed by the
13
results. Chapter Six concludes the study, linking it to the extant literature and presents
14
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This research seeks to understand the key processes and competencies necessary to
increasing collaborative capacity across disciplinary boundaries and institutional fields at both
the organizational and individual level is lacking in the existing literature. Collaboration allows
for building collaborative capacity both within institutions and between collaborative
participants. As discussed in chapter one, primary underlying assumptions of this inquiry are: (a)
we are witnessing the promulgation of new forms of inter-firm collaboration and (b)
organizations share foundational commonalities across institutional fields. Scholars agree that
the twenty-first century will be an age of accelerated interdependence (Austin, 2000; Kanter,
1998; Rackham, Friedman & Ruff, 1996). This increase in cross sector collaboration between
nonprofits, corporations, and government entities highlights the need for interdisciplinary
research and firmly establishing the need for examining key processes and competencies
necessary to increase collaborative capacity at the individual and organizational level. Thomson
(2001) affirms that the literature on collaboration is vast, but lacks cohesion and fertilization
across disciplines. One purpose of this review is to examine the research on collaboration across
disciplines.
This chapter begins with a review of the evolution of collaboration from the technical
then review the continuum of related concepts (e.g. cooperation, coordination, etc.) that can be
15
2.1 Evolution of Collaboration: From Technical-Rational to Humanistic Organization
Critics argue that the current research base concerning collaboration has a tendency to
examine the phenomenon in an ahistorical way. The concept and development of collaboration
has an evolutionary history and patterns of path dependence in which structures and relationships
adopted in one period tend to shape and constrain choices available at a later period.
provides a significant facet of background information. This research hopes to open the
We will present an analysis of organizational theory and management literature from the late 19th
century to present.
principles. He refers to the young United States as an organization society, where industry,
government and other organizational aspects of our life began to grow. The rise of scientific
management, founded by Frederick W. Taylor (1911) in the early twentieth century, promised to
increase organizational coordination, efficiency and profits by better controlling labor and the
labor process. The scientifically managed rational organization was to be directed by skilled
managers, advised by professional and technical elites, and based upon detailed task analysis and
direct supervision. Specialization and division of labor, while increasing hierarchical control,
also had the consequence of separating the conceptualization of work from it’s execution, both
deskilling traditional craft based labor and creating opportunities for a new middle class of
specialized professions. Specification of the labor process became the task and prerogative of
Taylor claimed that his principles could be applied universally and the search for efficiency
16
through scientific management became, “an obsession in the press and throughout our society”
Taylor’s principles differentiated the roles of managers and workers and mandated a top
down hierarchical relationship. Taylor’s focus was on individual workers and how they
interfaced with machines, but organizational theory quickly developed from Taylorism to the
more classical organizational approaches. Beginning with Max Weber, we began to view the
organization as more complex. The principles of organizations, while more sophisticated and
detailed today, are still essentially those of Max Weber’s time. Bureaucratic theory was the
through hierarchy of roles and positions based on ability, a system of rules, impersonality and
identified as key ever since (Perrow, 1986, p. 52). This ideal of coordination and cooperation
was adopted in order to calm the fighting spirit that arose within the union movement. Workers
were no longer expected to emulate their superiors and achieve success, but rather to accept their
modest rewards and the inherent satisfaction of good work (Bendix, 1956). At the core of
Weber’s work was the idea of legal-rational authority. The organizational charter established the
lines of communication and the chain of command, specification of role related duties and the
limits of authority defining interpersonal relationships. This shifted the basis of power from
traditional paternalist relations and direct supervision toward authority based upon position,
achieved through demonstrated merit and by internalization of the mission, vision, norms and
cultural practices of the bureaucratic organization; that is, from discipline by supervision to the
discipline of rules.
17
The classic Weberian technical rational model was not abandoned but it was modified as
assumptions of the necessity of impersonality governing social relations gave way to recognition
of the necessity of attending to the social dimensions of business organization. Neither classic
organizational theory nor the principles of scientific management addressed the worker,
however, the human relations movement in the 1930’s was largely a result of this shift in focus.
Elton Mayo applied social philosophy to industrial cooperation. Mayo attacked economic theory.
He took exception to all three primary tenets of economic theories: society as unorganized
individuals instead of natural social groups; individuals acting in their own self interest instead of
being swayed by group norms; and the individual as a logical thinker instead of one influenced
One of the most insightful of the early management scholars of the humanistic period
(mid 1930s to the 1950s) was Mary Parker Follett. Her work was ignored for decades because
her assumptions differed from those that prevailed when management was becoming a discipline
in the 1930s. Follett noted that the key to any successful organization was building and
maintaining a process that sustained human relationships and dealt effectively with conflict
without compromise. The rise of the human relations movement established a context in which
A second branch of human relations was more concerned with the organizational climate
rather than management practices. It offered an expanded view of cooperation suggesting that
objectives” (Miles, 1965, p.151). The period from the 1950s to the 1980s is characterized by
group relations models and focuses on the worker as a valuable human resource that should be
developed. McGregor (1960) and Likert (1961) are among the most influential of the human
18
resource management theorists of this period. Douglas McGregor's book The Human Side of
Enterprise (1960) asserted that management had to choose between only two different ways of
managing people: "Theory X" and "Theory Y." The first assumes that people don't want to work,
so they must be coerced and controlled. The second assumes that they really do want to work and
require only proper motivation. McGregor advocated Theory Y. Likert’s model contrasts
participatory structures, group relations theorists developed propositions about the role of
persons within the organization. Argyris and Schon (1974) proposed Model II as an alternative
organizations. The model offers these guidelines: “(1) Emphasize common goals and mutual
influence in relationships. (2) Communicate openly and publicly test assumptions and beliefs. (3)
Combine advocacy with inquiry” (p. 21). Kanter (1977) held similar ideals. He details five
major assumptions in a model proposing the person-organization relationship: (1) Work is not an
isolated relationship between actor and activity. (2) Behavior in organizations is, when all is said
and done, adaptive. (3) If behavior reflects a “reasonable” response to an organizational position,
it is not thereby seen as mechanically inevitable. Social structure does not control so much as it
limits-restricts the range of options, narrows the tools, and confronts the individual with a
characteristic set of problems to solve. (4) Behavior is also directly connected to the formal tasks
set forth in a job’s location in the division of organizational labor. (5) An interest in the
relationship of formal task and formal location, to behavioral responses also leads to an emphasis
on competence-ability to do the job more than is often stressed in social psychological analysis”
19
(p. 250-253). He concluded that organizational behavior is produced in the interaction of
individuals.
In the more recent period from the 1990s to present we see a significant critique of
bureaucratic theory and accepted management practices in the organizational literature. Classic
bureaucratic theory, especially when clothed in the velvet glove of human relations and human
especially within a relatively stable corporate industrial economy which characterized much of
20th century economic development. Economic restructuring that began in the 1970s in response
organizational structure and function. The industrial sector responded to global overproduction
and under consumption, first by a search for new sources of efficiency through technology and
the application of more comprehensive and systemic analysis to the problem of organizational
structure and process. National economic policy, however, began to search for new sectoral
markets. The focus of policy development and resources shifted to financial services, personal
services, and the development of new market segments both in goods and ideas. These emerging
sectors do not lend themselves to the types of organizational controls found in manufacturing.
The shifting economic environment, the complexity of corporate organization, and the
behavior through the lens of systems theory. One variant of systems theory, constructivist theory,
argues that different organizational viewpoints are due to differences in perspectives and
20
exclusive focus on leadership. Hersey (1996) quotes Warren Bennis, in the differentiation of the
while managers surrender to it. The manager administrates; the leader innovates.
The manager is a copy, the leader is an original. The manager maintains, the
leader develops. The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader
focuses on people…Managers do things right; leaders do the right things” (p. 8).
Bolman and Deal (1991) promote a more expressive, artistic conception of the
organization that encourages flexibility, creativity and interpretation. They are clear in their goal
to avoid producing specific behaviors but, rather, to cultivate habits of mind. They refer to their
Due to the size and increased complexity of organizations over the last twenty years we
have noted a consistent focus on the ambiguity of the role and expectations of the traditional
manager. This has resulted in several approaches to organization over the last twenty years
focusing on the need to develop cross-cultural skills and amplify communication skills at all
levels of the organization. Organizations are also continuing to adapt to economic imperatives.
The large corporations that emerged in the 1900s have given way to more flexible organizational
structures. These “shell corporations” are no longer the captains of industry, but, rather, rely on
collaborative alliances across organizations to increase efficiency and maintain profits. The
heavily on contract services. Hardy & Phillips (1998) accurately describe this organization
symbolically as the “shamrock organization” (p. 89). The authors note that organizations are
made up of three distinct categories of workers, each with varying levels of pay and
21
expectations. More importantly, they assert, the different categories of workers are organized
and managed distinctly. The first leaf of the shamrock is the self-managed core workers:
professionals, technicians, and managers. Between them they hold and own the organizational
knowledge that distinguishes the organization. The second leaf of the shamrock includes the
coordinated, contracted staff that makes up 80 percent of the entire corporate workforce. The
third leaf is the supervised, flexible work force, called on when needed and let go when
necessary (pp. 88-91). Handy was correct, in principle, about the current organizational model
except for one major premise. He cautions that the change we are experiencing is discontinuous
and not a part of a pattern. The pattern he fails to note is a system of inside contracting.
Clawson (1980) highlights the inside contracting model as a system used in the factories of 1860
in an effort to discipline workers while at the same time yielding high productivity. These inside
contractors had considerable power and freedom, implementing and carrying out hiring and
firing at their discretion. They were, however, expected to introduce innovation and often
utilized technological change. They worked inside the factories but were primarily responsible
for the production process. They also had a personal stake in a larger portion of the profit in
addition to selling products at a price per piece. The company retained control over general
policies such as what time work would begin and the length of the work day.
Richard Scott (2004) also reflects on the changes in organizations during the latter
decades of the twentieth century as, “surprising and unpredicted” and defines the new “master
strategy” as “externalization: disposing of internal units and contracting out functions formerly
Regardless of the wording one chooses, organizational theory and management practices
have evolved at a fast pace. In the short span of 150 years we can identify changes that range
22
from the strict task specialization of Taylorism, to recognition of the humanity of labor and the
increased productivity of labor when collaborative opportunities are present, to the more open
system that includes core workers, inside contractors and externalization. This new type of
the traditional bureaucratic model. There are several dimensions that distinguish the
talk is the work. There is no one right structure for this organization, but includes adaptive
leadership to fit existing structures (Berliner, 1997) and remains flexible in the process of
also excludes relationships that involve the use of control through legitimate authority (Phillip,
Hardy & Lawrence, 1998). The incentives and reward structure are categorized by shared goals
(Baxter, 2005) and social rewards in addition to the more traditional performance measures. The
assessment of individual’s for collaborative work are focused on lateral and vertical skills, a
concept I refer to as the T factor. They include: breadth (interested vs. interesting), depth of
Individual roles are defined primarily as policy entrepreneurs. These individuals orchestrate a
vision, follow through on a work plan, communicate regularly with key members, and schedule
command resources, build trust among participants, empower members, and have the
professional or technical respect of the participants (Agranoff & Mcquire, 2003). A collaborator
can emerge from any rank or role within the institution. They operate in a teamwork
environment where they participate in task sharing within a nexus culture (Balcaen, 2004).
23
These new cultural norms and rules have been described as the new governance structure. New
governance is the integration of horizontal systems into traditional, vertical ones (Kettl, 2000).
is characterized by open and frequent structures, established informal and relationship links, and
interactivity throughout the system (Berliner, 1997). The collaborative organization, although a
new form, closely relates to the inside contracting system utilized in the factories of the 1860s.
The evolution of collaboration from the technical rational model to the more humanistic
approaches can therefore be seen as the natural tendency for a pendulum to swing back to its
natural state
Building on the Weberian core of bureaucracy and folding in the more humanistic
approach complicates the simple technical model focused on task specialization with the more
complicated aspect and current dominant focus of environment. The previous analysis
typology. In order to conduct a more meaningful analysis it is necessary to consider the evolution
of our current model within the previous frames and incorporate into our analysis the theories of
organizational theory. We cannot hope to understand our current state without understanding
how it was shaped. The emergence of collaboration has its roots in the sociological tradition. The
cognitive and decision sciences, and management studies such as organization behavior, strategy,
24
and entrepreneurship. Even though scholars in organizational sociology have not embraced a
single unifying theory, there have been a diverse group of disciplines involved in the recognized
attention to the dominant sociological theory of institution. The major contribution of the
have expanded their purview to incorporate more and different tenets of environments affecting
organizations and broadening their analysis to allow the study of larger, more encompassing
systems in which organizations are central players (Scott, 2004). There are a plethora of case
studies that detail specific organizations and their responses to specific environments. Building
on the work of Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939), Selznick (1943) introduces three significant
hypotheses: (a) every organization creates an informal structure; (b) in every organization, the
goals of the organization are modified (abandoned, deflected, or elaborated) by processes within;
and (c) the process of modification is affected through the informal structure. Selznick (1948)
maintenance of cohesiveness, and the appearance of choice. Barnard and Selznick began the
task of synthesizing the conflicting views of organizations as production systems and adaptive
social systems.
Institutions that function in specialized arenas are referred to as either “field” or “sector”
(DiMaggio & Powell 1983; Scott & Meyer, 1983). Hughes (1936) then developed an
25
distinctly social sort” (p.180). Defining the essential elements of institutions as: “1) a set of
mores or formal rules, or both, which can be fulfilled only by (2) people acting collectively, in
established complementary capacities or offices. The first element represents consistency; the
and the surrounding and supporting work activities, primarily occupations and professions, as
the myriad of ways in which the institutional interacts with the individual:
perform otherwise forbidden tasks and a rationale to account for the inevitable
Moving from the individual focus of an institution to the interactions between more than
one institution, Warren (1967) conceptualizes the interorganizational field as, “based on the
observation that the interaction between two organizations is affected, in part at least, by the
nature of the organizational pattern or network within which they find themselves” (p. 397).
Warren uses the term "field" as a totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually
interdependent. Institutional fields develop through the process of structuration, whereby patterns
of social action produce and re- produce the institutions and relationships that constitute the field
(Barley & Tolbert, 1997). Institutional fields influence collaboration by providing a foundation
of rules and resources that actors use in their collaborative endeavors; conversely, collaboration
helps to evolve institutional fields in certain ways (Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2000). Over
time, collaborative interactions within a field drive the process of institutional definition and
shape ongoing interactions toward isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In a specific
setting the outcome of this process is a structured field composed of a number of organizations
26
which share institutionalized rules and resources, and provide the context for actual collaboration
(Phillips et al., 2000). In such a field, either existing practices get reproduced or new practices
get invented, or some combination of both (Holm, 1995). Through repeated interactions, groups
of organizations develop common understandings and practices that form the rules and resources
that define the field. At the same time these rules and resources shape the ongoing patterns of
interaction from which they are produced. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) describe the process as
follows:
enterprise. (p.148)
We have taken a broad brush stroke at the strongest of the sociological theoretical bases
barriers and difference are greater within organizations than between them. One would expect
structures. Perrow (1986) emphasizes the fundamental fact that organizations work. They
transform ideas and raw materials into products. He does affirm institutionalizations focus on
informal processes by stating that, “the characteristics of the work process will tell us more about
the structure and function of the organization than the psychological characteristics of its
members, their wants, motives and drives” (p.155). Drucker’s (1998) essay on management’s
27
new paradigms discusses the idea that the earliest of theorist’s did not distinguish the
management of for profit business from that of a non profit, or government agencies, “to the
earliest theorists ‘management’ applied to any kind of organization, not just business. An
organization was an organization, and they differed only in the way that one breed of dog is
different from another breed of dog” (p.4). The management of an organization is only
differentiated by the specificity of its mission, culture, history and vocabulary. Drucker states
that the early theorists believed those differences make up only 10 percent of the organization’s
work, “the rest is interchangeable” regardless of the industry (p. 5). If early theorists and
Drucker’s musings on the commonalities of organizations are accurate, then the contemporary
rhetoric that polarizes us rather than uniting us must be redirected towards a focus on solutions
and foundational commonalities that cross every facet of the organizations major common
characteristics to include their physical, functional and operational distinctions that categorize an
industry. That common thread is communicative in nature. There is a necessity for intra- and
IOC.
A barrier to collaboration is the “silo” effect and tacit knowledge, concepts explored in
more detail in the conceptual framework found in chapter three. The solution to those barriers is
solutions are more social and political than technical. Fragments of the necessary
knowledge may exist within two or more specialist disciplines but the specialists
do not listen to each other, so there is a lack of synthesis of research findings into
practicable courses of action. Even when technical solutions are known they may
28
He encourages an increased focus on organizations and individuals with the ability to synthesize
(improve bridge building between the diverse specialist research disciplines and stakeholders)
rather than focus on one specialist topic. He describes these lateral thinkers as “bridge girders,
spanning the gaps between the piers. The girders in turn support the decision makers, who have
an even broader view and could be regarded as the bridge deck. Without the vital holistic bridge
girder people, the decision makers and consumers are unable to cross from the problem to the
solution. The same sort of analogy can be applied to the various industry sectors, where
researchers, managers and equipment suppliers are the piers which need to be connected by
people who can see the point of view of each -- ideally, people who have worked in each of these
sectors and can see their points of view” (Kirke, 2002, p. 101). By adopting a holistic, multi-
disciplinary approach, individuals and organizations may be able to synthesize the findings of
specialists and find and apply new solutions to problems. The bridging of disciplines and focus
work of the twenty first century. The development of cross institutional field commonalities can
emerge as a means to achieve understanding between different fields. The practical benefits of
understanding difference in organizational types and values in different cultural contexts are not
people on a worldwide basis and also adapt their ways to the specific cultural
29
their focus away from the almost overwhelming variety of specific practices and
policies found around the world and look instead at the more abstract,
(p.227)
A focus on similarities versus differences was also adopted by Weick (1969), an early
process over structure, becoming over being. We therefore present a nested foundation that
The most familiar example of integrating as the social process is when two or
three people meet to decide on some course of action, and separate with a
purpose, a will, which was not possessed by anyone when he came to the meeting
but is the result of the interweaving of all. In this true social process there takes
Even though we have proposed the collaborative organization as dialog, we concede that
the model is nested in previous typologies of the organization as machine and organism. Bolman
and Deal (1991) refer to this type of multi-frame thinking as challenging and, at times,
counterintuitive. However, their approach advocates approaching situations from more than one
angle. Their four frames view the organization simultaneously as machine, family, jungle, and
theater, requiring the development of a capacity to think in different ways at the same time about
30
the same thing. The acknowledgement and respect for institutionalism and institutional mission
do not deflect from the significance of the “fundamental dimension” of communication common
to the organization.
Based on the theoretical focus previously presented we have chosen to frame this inquiry
structure developing awareness while working on a common goal. In this section we have shifted
our analysis from the broad field of organizational theory to the work of the organizational
sociologists, then further distilling the unit of analysis from institutionalism to the
interorganizational field. We change the conversation from one about structural significance to a
framework focused on the process of organizing. This study proposes that a focus on common
characteristics instead of differences in culture and mission statements will lead us to insights
that can be utilized across organizations due to their connection to common human interactions
understanding and alignment” the recognition and management of subcultures is critical (p. 266).
These premises establish our primary observation that dialogue is the genesis of
following section.
that entails institutional and individual development. Collaboration is tailor made for needs,
problems, and opportunities that manifest complex, uncertain, and interdependent relationships.
31
Collaboration may be a defining feature of competent and optimal practice, and the failure to
collaborate may be indicative of negligence and malpractice (Lawson, 2004). This review of the
innovations that range from agency to agency linkages to more fully integrated
greater understanding and thus collective learning (Mandell & Steelman, 2003, p.
198).
[Readers note: Lingua franca- is a partially developed language that is employed by people who
speak different and mutually unintelligible languages to communicate with each other.] Since
reduce confusion. This analysis aims to contribute to the development of a coherent, theoretically
which has suggested that collaboration entails multi-organizational arrangements, these generally
cannot be addressed by the resources of single organizations (Agranoff & Mcguire, 2003);
conflict resolution which has defined collaboration as “a process of joint decision-making among
key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain” (Gray, 1989, p.11); and
which includes a commitment to mutual relationships and goals, shared responsibility and
mutual authority, and accountability for success (Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001).
32
The majority of scholars across disciplines agree that collaboration is a core process
(Miles, Miles & Snow, 2005; Himmelman, 1996, 1997; Wood and Gray, 1991; Gray, 1989;
Thomas, 1992; Liedtka, 1996; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2006; Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2000;
Phillips et al., 2000, Thomson, 1998; Mattesich, & Monsey, 1992). It enables independent
individuals and organizations to combine their human and material resources so they can
accomplish objectives they are unable to bring about alone (Kanter 1994; Mayo, 1997; Lasker et
al., 2001). In addition to the previously presented premises of adaptive problems, conflict
conceptualization of collaboration defined as “a process through which parties who see different
aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go
beyond their own limited vision of what is possible. Moreover, it is a membership of individuals
within organizations working together to accomplish a long-term, complex goal or set of goals,
delegating autonomy and resources to the collaboration, whose efforts are highly visible to the
community (Mandell & Steelman, 2003; Ciglar, 1999) combined with Follett’s insight into the
key to any successful organization as building and maintaining a process that sustained human
relationships and dealt effectively with conflict without compromise (Lutz, 2006) into our
knowledge generation and transfer (Emery & Trist, 1965; Gray, 1989). These three major tenets
collaboration as
33
the result of connecting a bunch of human beings who are listening to each other,
interested in each other, bring separate depth to the problem, bring breadth that
gives them interest in the entire solution, allows them to communicate on multiple
levels (verbally, in writing, feeling, acting, pictures) and in all of those ways
finding the most articulate way to get a high fidelity notion across to a broad
range of people so they can each pull on the right lever at the right time (Nelson,
2008).
Although a common definition of collaboration might continue to elude us, the key tenets
are incorporated into the previous definition, moving us toward a common conceptualization of
this powerful strategy. Understanding and utilizing the central principles of collaboration will
assist practitioners in making qualitative and quantitative assessments of their initiative within
America has an unfortunate delusion of individualism, where the belief is that each
person is separate and apart from all other individuals. Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M.,
Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M., 1996) argue that Americans have wholeheartedly adopted a
language of individualism and that it lies at the very core of American culture. Americans speak
primarily of their individual goals desires and happiness and only secondly of their social and
religious obligations. Bellah and colleagues also warn that American individualism has spread to
a dangerous point, growing ‘cancerous’. They fear that individualism will leave people detached
from the community and political involvement. The idea that individualism had become
pronounced had also been given considerable attention by de Tocqueville (1840) and Durkheim
(1893, 1897, 1898) in the past. Cardini (2006) stresses that future public policies must draw on
34
participatory and cooperative practices as well as increasing coordination between different
spheres. Recent research supports the trend that IOC continues to expand and the imperative to
collaborate extends across all sectors (Podolny and Page 1998; Eggers & Goldsmith, 2004).
cooperative efforts will be laid out. The cooperative imperative is clear in relation to the
ineffectual yet intertwined individualism rampant throughout American society. The initial and
most widely researched concept is cooperation. Stauffer (1981) argues that cooperation is not the
reciprocal of competition; it results from competitive pressures as “institutions and persons need
to effect efficiencies” (p. 5). Cooperation recognizes the interdependence within the American
and world academy, “the overall health of institutions is bound by similar economic,
also the implicit or explicit goal of most social policy makers (Kahn, 1969), even though there
have been some suggestions that competitive relations among social agencies might serve clients
staggering. The first research studies were conducted in 1957. During the past 90 years over 550
studies have been conducted by a wide variety of researchers in a wide variety of settings
(Johnson & Johnson, 1992). From these 550 studies, a number of conclusions may be made
(Johnson & Johnson, 1992). Working together to achieve a common goal produces higher
achievement and greater productivity than does working alone. Students care more about each
other and are more committed to each other’s success and well-being when they work together to
get the job done than when they compete to see who is best or work independently from each
35
other. Working cooperatively with peers and valuing cooperating, results in higher self-esteem
and greater psychological health than does competing with classmates or working independently.
Cooperative learning simultaneously models interdependence and provides students with the
Gulati (2007) offers a succinct distinction between run of the mill cooperation and coordination.
across units. Since in most companies, knowledge and expertise reside in distinct
that allow customer related information sharing, division of labor, and decision
making to occur easily across company boundaries. This entails using structures
and processes that transcend existing boundaries” [Emphasis is mine] (p. 104).
interdependence. Collaboration has been proposed as the only viable response to domain
[disciplinary] level interdependence by Emery & Trist since each stakeholder can only
apprehend a portion of the problem, by pooling perceptions, greater understanding of the context
can be achieved (Emery & Trist, 1965; Trist, 1983). Hord (1986) contends that collaboration is
highly recommended and the most appropriate mode for interorganizational relationships.
Collaboration is distinct from hierarchical relations and involves the negotiation of roles and
36
Collaboration is also characterized by complex combinations of vertical and horizontal
activity that allows participants to see different aspects of a problem and explore constructively
their differences and search for solutions that go beyond what they can accomplish alone (Gray,
1989).
Such arrangements are a unique institutional form, consisting of processes that differ
from the spontaneous coordination of markets or the conscious management of hierarchy (Powell,
1990). DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) work on structuration also examines the characteristics of
collaboration. They describe three dimensions: “(1) the pattern of interactions among
collaborating organizations, (2) the structure of the coalition formed by collaborating partners, and
resources, and both harmonize and synchronize their operations to solve shared problems, meet
common needs, capitalize on important opportunities, and obtain prized benefits. Usually
operating with the assistance of intermediaries, these stakeholders join forces, thereby reinforcing
and promoting their interdependence. Here stakeholders develop unity of purpose; forge a
collective identity; develop shared language; knowledge; norms; and skills; foster equitable
relations; develop conflict resolution mechanisms; agree on shared responsibilities and mutual
accountabilities; promote norms of reciprocity and trust; reconfigure rules, roles, and jurisdictions;
share resources; realign existing policies and create new ones; develop shared governance systems;
coordination and collaboration. A few authors address the range of cooperative effort.
37
Himmelman (1996) suggests that various other terms actually refer to different levels of
reciprocity, with collaboration entailing the greatest personal investment, potential benefit, and
potential risk. Gajda (2004) cautions that collaboration as a term, “has become a catchall to
signify just about any type of interorganizational or interpersonal relationship, making it difficult
for those seeking to collaborate to put into practice or evaluate with certainty” (p. 66).
Collaboration is unique among the reciprocal relationships in that it involves an investment in the
capacity of another (Himmelman, 1996). So while coordinating and cooperating each contribute
to the accrual of one’s own skills and resources, collaborating contributes to both one’s own
collaborative capital and to that of the participating others, enhancing all parties’ potential for
effective collaboration in the future both with each other and with unspecified others.
Mattesich & Monsey (1992) propose that the distinctions between cooperation,
missions” (p.39). The authors differentiate collaborative activity as a “more durable and
organizations into a new structure with full commitment to a common mission. They warn that
such relationships require comprehensive planning and well defined communication channels
operating on many levels. Authority is determined by the collaborative structure and the risk is
much greater because each member of the collaboration contributes its own resources and
reputation, with resources often pooled or jointly secured, and the products shared (Costa &
Garmston, 1994).
The distinctions between the ranges of cooperative efforts are difficult, but have been
clarified by a review of the literature in the previous section. The areas that follow can assist us
38
in being able to distinguish one cooperative effort from another: integration; reciprocity;
resourcing; culture; and structure. Although all of these have not been discussed in detail, Figure
2 describes the main differences found in the interorganizational and interpersonal spectrum of
motivations to collaborate are as diverse as the terms used to express the process. In the
following section we will move from describing the characteristics of collaboration to exploring
scholars to its characteristics, however it remains popular. That popularity could be due to the
myriad of benefits resulting from collaboration. Collaborative arrangements are most often
pursued due to a combination of risk sharing, obtaining access to new markets and technologies,
39
Figure 2: Spectrum of Interorganizational Collaborative Activity.
40
speeding products and services to market, and pooling complementary skills (Powell, Koput, &
Smith-Doerr, 1996).
Lawson (2004) categorizes the benefits of collaboration as; effectiveness gains (e.g.,
redundancy); resource gains (e.g., more funding); capacity gains (e.g., weaknesses are covered,
workforce retention improves); legitimacy gains (e.g., power and authority are enhanced;
jurisdictional claims are supported); and social development benefits (e.g., social movements are
catalyzed).
Halpert (1982) describes two types of variables that provide incentives for organizations
to work together: interpretive and contextual. Interpretive variables involve the attitudes, values,
and perceptions of the participating actors. Contextual variables consider such factors as size,
Drawing on institutional theory and the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983), Powers
(2001) outlines four sets of forces influencing which organizations join an interorganizational
relationship: coercive, normative, mimetic, and cognitive. Coercive influences involve power
and dependence on another organization for critical resources. Such relationships may be
mandated through formal authority. Normative influences involve socially embedded ties that
may occur through previous alliances or referrals by a third party. Mimetic influences involve an
organization copying what seems to have worked for another organization. Cognitive influences
recognize “the role of reputation and perceived trustworthiness” of another organization and may
cooperative problem solving, and cross- boundary flows that include money, people, ideas,
41
practices, energy, attitudes, and a host of other tangible and intangible assets. Halpert (1982)
describes two types of variables that provide incentives for organizations to work together:
interpretive and contextual. Interpretive variables involve the attitudes, values, and perceptions
of the participating actors. Contextual variables consider such factors as size, technology,
in a majority of the articles he reviews; interorganizational relationships help firms create value
by combining resources, sharing knowledge, increasing speed to market, and gaining access to
acknowledgement of the basic fact that no one organization or class of organizations on its own
has the resources, connections, expertise, or intellectual capital to solve intractable problems or
seize emerging opportunities. Individual’s abilities to generate alternatives and experiment with
new solutions are limited by his or her particular routines and expertise, significant innovation is
possible only by bringing together diverse experts who can educate each other. Otherwise, the
ability to create new knowledge is limited by organizational routines, individual expertise, and
organizations, organizations are working to ensure that multiple talents, skills and key
stakeholders are cooperating and collaborating from the initiating stages of product innovation in
order to accelerate the process, reduce the cost, and maximize the likelihood of commercial
success. (Jassawalla & Sashittal in Beyerlein, 2006). Jassawalla & Sashittal propose
42
their two stage study of product innovation processes with 14 high technology based industrial
manufacturers they found that costs were reduced and an acceleration of the process was
achieved when these firms were able to: encourage cross-functional communication, adopt
arrangements such as liaisons and project management focused on improving coordination and
cooperation among participants, cross trained key employees and rewarded people for creativity
Scholars have also found that innovation is highly sensitive to leader approach and
management practices that are relationship-centered and emphasize shared power and
collaboration (Kanter, 1998). Collaboration is also receiving vast attention for its ability to
committed to the other’s interests as it is to its own, and this commitment reduces the need for
the continual assessment of trust and its implications for how rewards will be divided. Because
it is the innovation-generating relationships itself that are valued, collaborators can focus on its
intrinsic aspects knowing full well that future returns will be equitably allocated (Miles, Miles &
Snow, 2005).
Liedtka, Haskins, & Rosenblum (1997) conducted research on three leading professional
service firms who have found success in creating capabilities for collaboration and learning that
leverage individual competencies into enhanced problem solving for clients. The capability for
collaboration across boundaries whether functional, geographic, or line of business, also allows
the firms to find broader solutions to client problems (Liedtka, Haskins, & Rosenblum, 1997).
Kanter’s (2004) research supports that thesis by substantiating the importance of collaborative
capital to organizational success. Collaborative capital implies the ability to cross technical
43
boundaries to find multidisciplinary solutions. Collaboration’s value also facilitates learning at
organizational and individual levels; solutions tend to be more innovative and more integrated.
Many researchers have argued that shared problem solving also leads to greater creativity
because each individual’s abilities to generate alternatives and experiment with new solutions are
limited by his or her particular routines and expertise, significant innovation is possible only by
should not be based on some unexamined and idealized let’s all do this together discourse that
misses, and actually negates the dissent, struggle, and collective action on the contrary, to
theoretical definition of partnership has to recognize the issue of power and establish working
relationships in which struggle and dissent are discussible. The literature is weighed heavily
with the positive motivations for collaboration. Critics of collaborative activity are quick to refer
timeline. It is significant to note that organizations that rely on collaboration for funding and
resource dependence, primarily the educational and non-profit sector are generally motivated by
initiatives. They are, however, time and resource driven, so organizations hoping to derive the
many benefits possible from collaboration should be prepared for a long term commitment to the
44
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has presented a historical perspective on the evolution of collaboration establishing
proposing a definitive definition. The presentation of the collaboration spectrum has enabled us
to categorize and characterize the different types of collaborative relationships and the stages that
In summary, an overview of the outcomes of collaboration solidifies its value and points
to specific means of increasing collaborative capacity. Phillips, Lawrence and Hardy (2000)
propose that the interactive process that defines collaboration can occur in many different ways;
the ways in which negotiation, decision making and joint action occur vary tremendously across
collaborative contexts. I argue that there is a common foundation in dialogue and that there is a
consensus that new perspectives are achieved through perspective building and mediated conflict
common than not, self interest is not primary, we are not autonomous. Building on the thesis
that dialogue is the key to collaboration allows for a convergence of building collaborative
capacity within institutions and among individual collaborative participants. Johnson and Broms
(2000) point out that because we’ve separated the ends (financial targets and performance
objectives) from the means (the processes and practices used to create them), ends have come to
seem more concrete, more “real,” and therefore, more valuable than means. In contrast, they
show how means and ends co-evolve simultaneously. “The task of managers,” they argue, “is to
stop treating results as a target one reaches by aiming better. Instead, results are an outcome that
emerges spontaneously from mastering practices that harmonize with the patterns inherent in the
45
system itself. In other words, manage the means, not the results. Means are ends in the making”
results in specific strategies necessary for creating organizational cultures that support
collaboration and build capacity in collaborative actors. In the following chapter I would like to
46
Chapter 3: Organization As Dialogue: Development of a Systems Psychodynamic
Framework of Collaboration
Thomson (1998) suggests that collaboration fits conceptually into three broad
frameworks: a process framework adapted from Ring and Van de Ven (1994), an aggregative
reciprocity are met. The latter two frameworks are adapted from March and Olsen (1989).
including adaptive behavior, repeated interaction, and the development of norms such as trust
and reciprocity. Negotiation still occurs, but it focuses less on maximizing self-interests and
more on forging commonalities than differences (Thomson, 1998). As opposed to the majority of
aggregating private preferences into collective choices (March & Olsen, 1989). It is the
aggregative tradition that is most useful at present. This study is aggregative in the sense of (a)
crossing disciplinary boundaries and (b) synthesizing a variety of prior studies. One of the more
researcher to develop a theoretical framework that aggregates previous frameworks into a more
integrative in nature and aggregates existing theoretical approaches. It weaves the process,
The framework will then be employed in the following case analysis. The case analysis is a
47
longitudinal exploration of the development of collaboration between Fortune 500 companies
which an understanding of the processes and competencies required for building collaborative
capacity may be clarified. The theoretical framework underpinning this research is based on the
pioneering work of the Tavistock Institute. This group of scholars engaged in action research and
promoted an integration of insights from social sciences and psychoanalysis in the postwar
period (Trist & Murray, 1990). Action learning theories describe organizations as undergoing
suggest that systems and their environments are so interdependent that as one changes it creates
the need for change in the other. Hence the need for mutual learning and continual readjustment
is created (Michael, 1973; Schon, 1980; Morgan, 1982). Lindblom’s (1959) seminal work on
Lindblom’s (1965) work focus exclusively on his distinction of the approaches he proposed
rather than the common entry point of adjustment, “For all the imperfections and latent dangers
in the ubiquitous process of mutual adjustment, it will often accomplish an adaptation of policies
to a wider range of interests than could be done by one group centrally” (p. 85-86).
Systems psychodynamics is a new and emergent field. The term has only come into
common usage in the last two decades. It is also sometimes referred to as socio-analysis. This
contemporary paradigm has been developed to address the challenges of new forms of
organizing (e.g. Gould, Stapley, & Stein, 2001; Huffington et al., 2004). The central tenet of the
48
“psychodynamic”. The systems designation refers to an open systems concept as the dominant
framing perspective for understanding the structural aspects of an organizational system. These
include the levels of authority, nature of work tasks, processes and activities. Systems’ thinking
requires us to acknowledge that our systems are made up of a set of components that work
together for the overall objective of the whole (output). In a systems process, there is a series of
inputs to throughputs (or actions), resulting in outputs into the system’s environment. A system
also contains a feedback loop for monitoring and evaluating the system’s input, throughput, and
output. All systems are subsystems of larger and larger systems in their environment. Systems
thinking is about, thinking backward from your desired outcome, determining where you are
now, and then finding the core strategies or actions that will take you from today to your desired
outcome.
well as the unconscious group and social processes. These processes are simultaneously both the
difficulties. This perspective typically involves understanding, interpreting, and working through
collective defenses. The main assumption of this paradigm can be summarized as follows:
Behavior is often the result of conscious and unconscious mental processes. In the study of
organizing processes, conscious and unconscious aspects have to be taken into account. People
create a subjective, emotional reality of the organization. Attribution of meaning, through social
decision makers and theorists alike to enter into a dialogue at a common entry point regardless of
49
problem domain with multiple stakeholders is the simplest of collaborative forms where, ‘talk is
the work.’ The ‘black box’ of collaborative capacity is conversation. The dialectic process serves
as a mode to enable ‘the right individuals to produce the myriad of collaborative outcomes
sought by so many’. The location of language is not just central to organization studies but is
indivisibly enfolded in the conception of organization and the process of organization theorizing.
subcultures, language is the untapped area of investigation in the field of organizational studies.
One of the challenges to examining collaboration from the perspective of dialogue is the
to question their existing interpretive frameworks. Lindblom (1965) comments on this inherent
difficulty: “trouble lies in the fact that most of us approach policy problems within frameworks
given by our view of a chain of successive policy choices made up to the present. Our thinking is
limited by our experience due to the ‘intimate knowledge’ we have of our own organized
competencies can be clarified using the systems psychodynamics perspective. The following
and draws heavily from the systems psychodynamic perspective. The focus on communication
For the purposes of this study collaboration will be defined as an emergent process where
solutions to adaptive problems. In the following we will present the key processes and
50
competencies required to support collaboration and increase collaborative capacity at the
individual and organizational level. We build on the development of general collaboration theory
emergent interorganizational process. The aim of this inquiry is to strengthen the theoretical
foundation collaboration is founded on and assist practitioners with research based practices that
inform their daily decisions. The premise of this thesis is that individuals and organizations alike
find a common foundation in dialogue. There is general consensus that new perspectives are
achieved through perspective building and mediated conflict resulting in new collaborative
approaches to meta problems. This conceptual framework serves as an aggregate theory, building
capacity will emerge when an organization has the right blend of work environment factors to
enhance collaboration, along with the right individuals selected to work collaboratively as well”
(Nemiro, Hanifah, & Wang, 2005, p. 148). The participants in a collaborative process bring with
them various institutional affiliations and the institutionalized rules and resources that they
employ. Collaboration, therefore, requires an initial negotiation within and across institutional
fields (Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2000). Institutionalized rules and resources are used in the
negotiation of at least three aspects of the collaborative process: the definition of the issue or
problem that the collaboration is intended to address; the membership of the collaboration; and
the practices utilized in response to the problem. This inquiry precedes each of these aspects of
collaboration.
51
Conversation serves as the nexus within IOC and it’s application brings us closer to a
comprehensive theory of collaboration. This model addresses the three critical and overarching
issues of collaboration, as established by the research of Wood & Gray (1991, p. 140): (1) the
preconditions that make collaboration possible and motivate stakeholders to participate, (2) the
process through which collaboration occurs, and the (3) outcomes of the collaboration. This map
multiple disciplines to expand the range of rational choice models, to a ’better than rational’
behavioral theory of bounded rationality and moral behavior. She proposes to build a bridge
between the scholars who stress structural explanations of human behavior and those who stress
individual choice to find common ground, “rather than continue the futile debate over whether
structural variables or individual attributes are the most important” (pp. 2-3). This model is used
as the framework for the initial phase of the proposed collaboration model, initiated around
52
Figure 3: Core relationships Simple Scenario
53
3.2.2 The Core Relationships
At the core we find consistent, strong, and replicable findings of substantial increases in
the levels of cooperation achieved when individuals communicate face to face. Ostrom, Gardner
and Walker (1994) present an extensive review of studies showing a positive effect of the
capacity to communicate. The links between the trust that individuals have in others, the
investment others make in trustworthy reputations, and the probability that participants will use
reciprocity norms is a mutually reinforcing core affected by structural variables as well as the
past experiences of participants. This leads to the various levels of cooperative activity found in
p.40).
Collaborative capacity refers to the capacity to work effectively with others to achieve
mutually beneficial goals. Thinking about collaboration in terms of “capital” suggests a figure
ground shift with respect to the phenomena of interest. Whereas collaboration focuses on the
dynamics and current actions among collaborators, the notion of collaborative capital
ingredients as:
54
Figure 4: Core relationships.
55
approaches can bring enormous value and the interdisciplinary environments also
ages, and the like, we increase the likelihood that the results will not be what we
stimulate collaborative efforts, and to continue learning how to learn. The new
growth and empowerment of the individual are the keys to corporate success
(Negroponte, 2008).
literature demonstrates that most often cooperative strategies are elevated to an intention to
collaborate either by outside forces that raise anxiety about pending change or a strong
coordination and finally collaboration. In this inquiry we have identified the two critical
preconditions that must be present; we’ve moved their focus outside of the individual or
organizational domain because they are both overarching concepts and foundational
requirements. Those concepts include trust and a climate of shared power. The first of the two
56
3.2.4 Trust
Generating trust appears to be one of the critical elements common to most forms of
collaboration. Trust is vital for any relationship, business or otherwise, when there is insufficient
knowledge and understanding of the other person or group. We have to bear in mind that the
between the people, often very few of them, who represent or symbolize those organizations.
Trust can be defined as the belief held by members of one team about another team that the other
will behave in such a way that gains will result (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) Researchers have
(i.e. Technical and interpersonal skill and knowledge), and consistency. Trust is a fundamental
component of all human relationships, however, because of their specific historical experiences
and current institutional conditions, societies vary substantially in the meaning their members
attach to trust, and the conditions for building it (Child, 2001). Kramer (1999) suggests that these
perceptions of exchange partner trustworthiness are, among other things, based on the history of
prior interactions with that particular individual. Kramer also states that, “a number of studies
have demonstrated that reciprocity in exchange relationships enhances trust” (1999, p.575).
Kramer’s review of the trust literature concludes that trust can bring a number of important
performance:
57
2. Trust between partners will encourage them to work together to cope with unforeseen
circumstances. It permits them to adjust more rapidly, and with less conflict, to new
circumstances which contracts and other formal agreements have not foreseen;
3. Trust can provide an alternative to incurring the costs and potentially de-motivating
Kramer (2006) focuses on the benefits of trust while Ostrom (1998) outlines ways that
trust can be increased over time. He presents the following five strategies:
reciprocators
Kouzes and Posner (1987) have reported that trust results in team members being more
What happens when people do not trust each other? They will ignore, disguise,
and distort facts, ideas, conclusions, and feelings that they believe will increase
others, we in turn generally hesitant to reveal information to them and reject their
58
attempts to influence us…All of the behavior that follows from a lack of trust is
conception of power, one where power is defined as the production of intended effects not only
unilaterally but also collectively. Power thus becomes catalytic, not commanding, and
facilitative rather than dominating. Major inequities in power are a deterrent to collaboration.
Collaboration requires the ability to work effectively across multiple cultures, to respect
and value the different perspectives that each brings and to know when to grant authority based
power sharing.
59
Figure 5: Organization as Dialogue.
60
3.3 Phase I Preconditions
organizational competencies that include: the ability to recognize when to collaborate (and when
not to), the ability to determine who needs to be involved in the collaboration (and who
shouldn’t) and the group processes that enable effective collaboration (Huffington et. al., 2004;
Page, M., 2003). Southern (2005) calls for a shift in how we think about relationships with others
and value aspects of the relationship that are uncommon such as seeing the importance of our
relationships to support out common mission and to provide opportunities for continued learning.
In the individual we look for ‘T shaped skills’, that is, breadth of knowledge as well as depth of
specialization. The organizational preconditions include the culture, climate and the business
processes that function within the organization to include the role of teamwork and performance
individuals serving in key roles. The major tenets of the individual perspective include the
general skills, talent selection and development and the specific roles that those individuals play
are significant to increasing collaborative capacity. These individual competencies are described
This section discusses three individual attributes that are necessary for successful Phase I
collaborative processes to emerge. These three attributes are skills, talent selection (i.e. effective
talent identification and acquisition) and the willingness or aptitude to adopt new organizational
roles. Together these attributes point to the need to transform the bureaucratic organizational
61
man of the 20th century in to the collaborative organizational person necessary in the 21st
century.
Environments are complex, uncertain and turbulent; reducing these factors is among the
central challenges of an organization. A foundational tenet of that turbulence and central topic of
this inquiry is communication. The two primary communicative paths are either technical, such
bureaucratic structures has resulted in incompetence when attempting to build relations across
technical silos in the organization. Communication happens only on each personal boundary line,
which is dynamic, and acts on two levels: the technical and the relational. The presence of a
connector, mediator, translator, and negotiator, who has both human and technical training, is
essential. Effective collaboration concerns how companies attract, hire, train and retain skilled
people. Highly skilled personnel are an essential precondition for collaborative capital (Koch,
2005). Morgan & Lassiter (1992) define skills as the ability to do something specific, usually
obtained through training and practice. This presupposes that investments are being made to
build organizational and individual collaborative capacity. The presence of the connector role is
3.3.2 Skills
MIT Open Course Ware, Thomas Friedman discusses his thesis of the world being flat. His
premise focuses on the digital platform that connects Bangalore, Boston and Beijing enabling
users from any of these places to, “plug, play, compete, connect and collaborate.” Friedman
believes that innovation will come from, “having two or more specialties,” from those people
able to connect the dots and mash them together” (Friedman, 2007)
62
The skills required of collaborators are distinct. Collaborative participants should have
skills such as lateral influencing, based on personal authority, the competence to build
collaborative relationships, the ability to acknowledge and manage the uncertainties and
ambiguities of roles, the capacity to share responsibility for direction setting and to work
creatively with sameness and difference (Huffington et al., 2004; Page, M., 2003). Mankin,
Cohen & Fitzgerald (2004) refer to these traits as lateral skills, competencies that enable people
to build bridges with others. Nicholas Negroponte of MIT describes perspective as a key tenet.
The ability to make big leaps of thought is a common denominator among the originators of
breakthrough ideas, “usually this ability resides in people with very wide backgrounds,
multidisciplinary minds, and a broad spectrum of experiences” (2003). Randy Nelson (2008),
Dean of Pixar University, discusses the selection process at Pixar. The four critical factors Pixar
not as the source. A broad range of experience in the world is the thing that
fuels that. For example as a programmer that has studied art, you are able to
do the translation at the sending end. The emitter cannot say they are
63
These skills can be portrayed as "T-shaped" skills: a rich depth of technical expertise in
one area, coupled with an ability to link that work with other areas. In truly collaborative spaces,
risk taking, experimentation, careful listening, intuition, building on others ideas and exploration
are also critical skills to develop in the human element (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994).
Gulati (2007) describes the capable employee as an individual with two kinds of generalist
skills. The first is experience with more than one product or services, along with a deep
knowledge of customer needs (multidomain skills) and the second is an ability to traverse
internal boundaries (boundary spanning skills) … Enhancing skill sets is only part of the
Selecting the right individuals and further developing these critical lateral skills in those
learning unless supported by solid personal relationships, built through lateral skills (Nemiro, J.,
Hanifah, S., & Wang, J., 2005). Liedtka, Haskins, & Rosenblum (1997) conducted research on
three leading professional service firms who have found success in creating capabilities for
collaboration and learning that leverage individual competencies into enhanced problem solving
for clients. The recruiting processes at each of the three firms were distinguished by specific
criteria to identify candidates. All three firms looked for analytic talent to do the technical work,
human qualities to do the relationship work, and entrepreneurial instincts to do the organization-
building work. They sought "multilingual" individuals capable of managing both content and
process. They deemed all three criteria essential (Liedtka, Haskins & Rosenblum, 1997). Thus
the selection process began with clear criteria that focused on qualities designed to make
64
collaboration work in the long term: capable, trustworthy colleagues, with high potential for
personal growth, who were oriented toward working together and committed to thinking, at an
Collaboration may not arise spontaneously and often requires key individuals with
specific capabilities to initiate collaborative processes (Marot, Selsky, Hart & Reddy, 2005).
When they pool their energies they can become important forces for change in their field (Trist,
1983). Acting as “institutional entrepreneurs” (Rao, Morrill, & Zald, 2000) they diffuse new
practices in a field through industry and other networks (see Holm, 1995; Greenwood, Suddaby,
& Hinings, 2002). These new professionals cannot be defined in traditional ways. They are
inter-professional mediators who are able to cross over the boundaries of different disciplines of
study to enlarge the borderlands of the aggregate of individuals in groups (Bettiol, 2005). They
orchestrate a vision, follow through on a work plan, communicate regularly with key members,
and schedule meetings to facilitate collaboration. In political arenas, such individuals have been
called policy entrepreneurs. Ordinarily this individual is someone who holds an administrative
position in one key organization, can command resources, build trust among participants,
empower members, and has the professional or technical respect of the participants. This
individual may or may not be the convener or chairperson (Agranoff, R. & Mcguire, M., 2003).
Proactive individuals locate and resonate with other individuals who are moving in the same
direction. When they pool their energies they can become important forces for change in the
field (Trist, 1983). Acting as “institutional entrepreneurs” (Rao, Morrill, & Zald, 2000) they
diffuse new practices in fields through industry and other networks (Holm, 1995).
65
Daniel Pink (2005) proposes that people who hope to thrive in the conceptual age must
understand the connections between diverse, and seemingly separate, disciplines. They must
know how to link apparently unconnected elements to create something new. He describes this
sort of person as a boundary crosser. A boundary crosser is a person who “can operate with
equal aplomb in starkly different realms…. They develop expertise in multiple spheres, they
speak different languages, and they find joy in the variety of human experience” (p. 136). These
The management of collaborative efforts has also been known to require a hybrid
managers, who speak the languages of the various parties and are credible to each of them
(Morris, 2002). Another critical function in IOC has proven to be the relationship manager.
Although there is not a common term for this specialized role, we can identify common traits.
The managing of relationships has become one of the most important matters. This has created a
need for new professionals that cannot be defined in traditional ways. They are inter-
professional mediators who are able to cross over the boundaries of different disciplines of study
quoted in Kirke (2002), “The knowledge exchange function is so important to our survival…that
is needs professional attention…We employ knowledge brokers to do this task. People with a
strong technical base and strong communication skills. They are the synthesizers and packagers
of knowledge rather than creators of new knowledge. Intermediary, neutral people and
Wenger (2000) comments that these intermediary people are also known as inter-professional
66
leaders, resource coordinators, linkage agents, and community developers in addition to
boundary brokers.
Boundary brokers enable collaboration across disciplines that are enhanced by using
can introduce elements of one practice into another. Certain individuals thrive on being brokers:
they love to create connections and engage in ‘import-export’, and so would rather stay at the
boundaries of many practices than move to the core of any one practice.
Outposts: bringing back news from the forefront, exploring new territories
Pairs: often brokering is done through a personal relationship between two people
from different communities and it is really the relationship that acts as a brokering
device.
Several titles exist for individuals actively managing collaborative initiatives. In the
partnership coordinator. As day-to-day support the titles most often found are partnership
facilitator and project manager. The collaborative person combines intuition and inquiry and
functions from an asset based perspective (rather than a focus on problems). An array of
political, analytical and people skills enable them to mobilize key support for their visions.
Lateral skills such as emotional intelligence, communication, maturity, patience under pressure
67
and empathy are among the most critical (Prins, 2006). From a psychodynamic perspective, the
contain the anxieties stirred up by the uncertainty and ambiguity of the process (Amado &
Ambrose, 2001). This facilitator helps participants to adapt rational knowing and emotional
feelings to the emergent situation (Vansina, 2004). Investing in building these skills within
Difficulty with role transitions emerges as an obstacle to collaboration. Other cross functional,
cross disciplinary and interorganizational processes are confronted by similar challenges. The
skills, roles and specific talent selection strategies require thoughtful consideration at all stages
collaboratively oriented individuals are to be successful. These attributes include (a) the culture
and unit subculture of the organization; (b) prevailing institutional and organization business
practices; (c) willingness to transcend “silos” to share knowledge; (d) teamwork; and (e)
performance management.
organizations on its own has the resources, connections, expertise, or intellectual capital to solve
Collaborative capital can only be fully invested within cultures that foster collaboration.
Cultures define and reinforce how people act. People cannot and will not act collaboratively
68
when the culture encourages competitive, individual behavior. Establishing cultures of
collaboration requires changing the way we understand ourselves in relationship with others and
changing the language to be congruent with that understanding. Collaborative capital is built
over time as organizational cultures are created that thrive on diversity and continuous learning.
As people challenge existing assumptions and limiting beliefs, take personal and collective risks,
disagree, and learn from both success and mistakes, trust and confidence is strengthened and the
organization builds greater capacity to meet challenges and serve the greater good (Southern,
2005).
Gulati (2007) describes the culture of cooperation as a one in which people are rewarded
for breaking through silos to deliver customer solutions. These customer-centric companies live
by a set of values that put the customer front and center, and they reinforce those values through
cultural elements, power structures, metrics, and incentives that reward customer-focused,
solutions oriented behavior. Gulati goes on to claim that at least half the battle of promoting
cross-silos customer focused cooperation lies in the “softer” aspects of culture, including values
and the way the company communicates them through images, symbols, and stories.
Another admittedly soft but powerful cultural tool for aligning employees around
customer needs is to treat your workers the way you want them to treat customers. The hope is
that people will adopt a collaborative orientation and customer focus because they want to and
not just because they’ll reap a financial reward. Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee and Moran (2003)
describe a collaborative culture as one that includes: trust and respect in everyday interactions;
egalitarian attitudes among members at all ranks; power based on expertise and accountability;
shared leadership where all members take initiative; valuing of diverse perspectives;
commitment to the success of other members as well as one’s own; valuing of truth and truth
69
telling; commitment to continuous improvement of the whole organization; active learning; and
personal responsibility. The facets of culture determine both the nature and the style of the
Nicholas Negroponte, cofounder of MIT’s Media Lab, argues that the stronger and more
homogenous the culture the less likely it is to harbor innovative thinking. “Common and deep
seated beliefs, wide-spread norms, and behavior and performance standards are enemies of new
ideas” (2003, p. 34). A heterogeneous culture, by contrast, breeds innovation by virtue of its
people, who look at everything from different viewpoints. Jassawalla & Sashittal identify
distinctive collaborative cultures within their study of fourteen high technology based industrial
manufacturers (2006). Their focus is on the psychosocial environment that includes beliefs,
values and assumptions in addition to physical artifacts such as observable rituals, physical
symbols, mythologies, and vocabularies. Institutionalized cultural patterns act as a resource for
solving problems while simultaneously constraining action and the ability of social actors to
conceive of options as they act in everyday situations. Schein (1993) believes that the ability to
perceive the limitations of one’s own culture and to develop the culture adaptively is the ultimate
challenge of leadership.
Researchers have found that subcultures or work environments may exist at the group
level as well as the organizational level (Powell & Butterfield, 1978). Sackmann (1992) found
organizations; other aspects differed considerably across subgroups within the organization.
Gersick (1988) found that the success or failure of a work team depended heavily on the
70
environment of the group. Researchers of organizational climate distinguish between more
holistic, omnibus measures of organizational climate, and those that attempt to study specific
climates of interest.
critical to building collaborative capital throughout the organization. The creation of both
structured and unstructured avenues for individuals to come together in the collaborative process
collaborative creativity. The shared learning may be incremental, but can be profound, including
changes in basic assumptions that lead to significant shifts in perspective (Liedtka, Haskins &
Rosenblum, 1997). Knowledge and learning across many different types of industries and
organizations will succeed to the extent that they can use superior knowledge and capabilities to
create a continuous stream of innovative products and services. On the horizon of the twenty
first century is the possibility to utilize a global knowledge base. Industries driven by knowledge
are forced to face the challenges posed by global economic competition. Learning to quickly
create and share knowledge will foster innovation. Successful business operations across a
variety of industries will depend on abilities to collaborate vertically and horizontally both
internally and across organizations. Organizations have been quick to experiment with
71
geographically dispersed work teams to take advantage of interorganizational and inter-national
individual and collective beliefs and assumptions and new patterns of action and supporting
structures that encourage communicative competence and risk taking. The field of transformative
learning in adult education provides research and theory that informs our understanding of how
to foster transformative learning and change at the personal level. Cramton (2001) describes
frames of reference as ‘complex webs of assumptions, expectations, values, and beliefs that act
as a filter or screen through which we view ourselves and our world” The integration of these
diverse perspectives creates an opportunity for knowledge sharing and creation. Knowledge is
created by means of a dynamic that involves the interplay between the explicit and the tacit, that
is, the knowledge conversion process (Nonaka & Teece, 2001). J. Douglas Brown in The Human
Nature of Organizations (1974) argues that science and technology have not altered the
persistent and controlling attribute of human organization- namely, whatever the organization’s
size or form, it continues to be subject to the complex and unpredictable initiatives and responses
of the individual human beings who make it up. This is the human nature of organizations.
Organizations require hierarchy, specialization, and coordination. Creativity does not readily fit
these requirements.
Ranjay Gulati in a May 2007 Harvard Business Review article entitled, “Silo Busting,”
discusses the findings of a five-year study of the challenge of top and bottom-line growth in the
face of commoditization. Two-thirds of the senior executives surveyed cited that they have
trouble harnessing their resources across internal boundaries in a way that customers value and
are willing to pay for. Gulati goes on to describe how companies in their initial attempts to offer
72
customer solutions are likely to create structures and processes that transcend rather than
obliterate silos. These boundary spanning efforts may be highly informal- even as simple as
hoping for or encouraging serendipity and impromptu conversations that lead to unplanned cross
unit solutions. Gulati (2007) defines coordination as establishing structural mechanisms and
processes that allow employees to improve their focus on the customer by harmonizing
information and activities across units. In most companies, knowledge and expertise reside in
distinct units- organized by product, service or geography. Companies need mechanisms that
allow customer-related information sharing, division of labor, and decision making to occur
easily across company boundaries. This entails using structures and processes that transcend
generation need to develop a greater awareness of the processes and strategies of organizational
learning. Organizational knowledge is distributed across functional groups and its generation and
continual existence is dependent on the overall communication climate which is embedded in the
organizational culture. Collaboration requires the ability to work effectively across multiple
cultures, to respect and value the different perspectives that each brings and to know when to
grant authority based on knowledge and experience. The integration of these diverse perspectives
creates an opportunity for knowledge sharing and creation. Building collaborative capacity can
3.3.5.5 Teamwork
disagreement. Brown uses Barnett Pearce’s (1989) cultural communication model to show how
73
while the modernistic communicator may engage disagreement, it is generally in
Disagreements about what should be done are seen as conflicts between different
views and try to increase their knowledge to see which “right” might be more
appropriate, or if there might be a third way of resolving the conflict. (p. 53)
different points of view and bridge those differences to create new perspectives. Ability refers
both to the capacity of team members to share knowledge and to the effectiveness of the
partners.
Highly coordinated and cooperative teams produce synergy, or results that are more
effective than the sum of the individual team member contributions. Groups are an important
mechanism to accomplish the work of organizations and higher education institutions. Teams
have the advantage of bringing multiple perspectives to bear on issues and of promoting thinking
that goes beyond the confines of a single department, unit, or discipline. As institutions strive to
be more cross-functional and interdisciplinary, teamwork will be key. Rentsch and Hall (1994)
provide a good rationale for the importance of team member characteristics in the context of the
person-environment fit. High team performance requires that the team members have the
specific knowledge, skills, and abilities that fit or match those needed to do the team’s work.
Team performance can be expected to increase if the type of work being performed fits or
74
matches the values of the team members, not much can be accomplished if the team members do
not possess the skills, abilities, and knowledge that are relevant to the team’s objectives.
The reward system of the organization is particularly influential. If rewards are based on
individual performance conflict is more likely to occur as team members struggle to make
themselves look good, regardless of the effects on the team’s overall performance (Johnson &
Johnson, 1992). In the synthesis and prospectus of the Political Psychology of Cooperation,
Sullivan, Snyder, Sullivan and Chapp (2008) emphasize that structural solutions are difficult to
achieve for three reasons. First, rewards and punishments have a marginal effect on behavior.
People gain various social rewards through interpersonal interaction that cannot be controlled by
structuring the task or reward system. These social rewards may create individual incentives that
are not aligned with group goals. Secondly, in an organizational setting, membership in a given
group is unlikely to be an individual’s only role, and people therefore have other personal and
professional agenda and finally, people may not accurately perceive the structure of the tasks or
the rewards. As partnerships convert from simple information sharing and coordination of tasks
to more collaborative efforts the individual competencies of skills, talent selection, and specific
organizational roles become more critical. The person in the organization allows for a
transformation not necessarily of structure but rather of capacity. The organizational culture
sanctions collaboration while subcultures either stifle or enable the development of collaboration.
These preconditions are not limited, but rather are those supported by the literature and scholars.
incorporate risk taking, share learning and knowledge and incorporate creativity and innovation
75
more freely into their process to reach established organizational outcomes. The process that
these preconditions travel through are discussed in the following section, where we establish the
and collective beliefs, or specific ‘habits of the mind.’ These new patterns of action are
regenerative. The following process variables reflect the emotional and cognitive dynamic that
The initial invitation is the genesis that leads us to collaboration, and as the conversation
continues we begin to turn together to each other and experience the unfolding that occurs when
we respond. If the chosen path is to collaborate, the talk evolves to deliberation and suspension
where listening without resistance or imposition and allowing for the suspension of assumptions,
judgments and certainty (Isaacs, 1999) takes us deeper into the nexus of collaboration. At its
heart we move in and experience dialogue. Collectively they enable the process of collaboration.
3.4.1 Invitation
we communicate and take action. Once we recognize the importance of diverse perspectives,
disagreements, and a cultural environment that supports learning and knowledge sharing, we
need to develop processes for engagement. Dialogue, as a way to engage in conversations that
are contextual and meaningful, is an important strategic resource (Southern, 2005). Cardini
have to deal with organizational difference around professional languages and culture. Different
76
professional languages, and values associated with it, are an important source of
our culture evolves toward more individualism. We spend less time in conversation with others
and more time at our computers, in our cars, and in front of the television, we become isolated
and lose our ability to communicate. As more and more people are working from home,
geographically dispersed and spanning disciplines and areas of expertise an emphasis must be
mission, means, and method to effect response, both rational and emotional, in the human beings
who form the organization. Since both the initiation and response in this process of
communication are human-centered, the human nature of this aspect of organization is clear.
The complex of technical devices which have come to facilitate the process of communication in
larger organizations tends to divert attention from the essential truth that effective
The human nature of communication within organizations enforces the human character
of the whole. As the new business landscape continues to emerge, and new forms of organization
take shape, our ability to lead will be dependent upon our ability to host and convene quality
deep level of inquiry to explore new thinking and make new meaning. Dialogue assumes a
respect for diverse perspectives which is demonstrated through listening with care and curiosity.
Buber (1947/1955) describes “the basic movement of the life of dialogue is the turning toward
77
the other” (p.22) He sees the necessary relationship as one of “I-thou,” showing respect and
honoring of the other. Dialogue is much more than an exchange of words. It is exchange of
meaning from which new meaning is made collectively. Friere (1992; 1994) describes dialogue
how we live and work together. It is the necessary, core process from which other collaborative
and beliefs. This allows dialogue and discussion to move in new directions. This in turn
Much has been written about the capacity of collaboration to generate new and better
ways of thinking about complex problems. This capacity, which is reflected in partnership goals
and plans, derives from the strengths that emerge when many “heads” or “voices” are brought
together, particularly when the people involved contribute different kinds of knowledge and
perspectives (Richardson & Allegrante, 2000). Gray (1989) notes that the development of
domain level collaboration is complex and often dialectical in nature (Zeitz, 1980; Gricar &
Brown, 1981). According to Heidegger, we live in language. As rational beings, we construct our
world through language. Language is the fabric of cultures. Words are meaning laden and shape
how we think about concepts. Establishing cultures of collaboration requires changing the way
we understand ourselves in relationship with others and turning together so that our language can
78
3.4.5 Suspension, Hang
being right only at the end” (De Bono, 1970, p. 10). Vertical thinking involves being right all
along. Judgment is exercised at every step. In lateral thinking, judgment is suspended. In this
regard judgment, evaluation and criticism are regarded as similar processes. Lateral thinking
emphasizes challenging assumptions (De Bono, 1970). Bohm (2004) suggests that both within
our own and the context of our dialogue we are able to suspend assumptions. Senge (1990)
describes this process as neither repressing a reaction or following through on it, but rather fully
attending to it (p.xxiv). The action of suspension allows for a natural unfolding, “observe these
things, be aware of them, and of their connection” (Bohm, 2004, p.84). Insight affects the whole,
“inferential understanding, the chemical level, the tacit level, the material process” (Bohm, 2004,
p.94).
symbols. Symbols, in turn, vary cross culturally. It is because symbols must be used in the
result. The real test of cohesion and continued growth will be the ability of human beings to
understand clearly the meaning of the messages they receive so that they can take action with
intelligence and zeal. Isaacs (1999) describes dialogue as “a conversation in which people think
together in a relationship” (p.19). Mezirow (2000), drawing on the work of Habermas, describes
learning requires that we assess the meanings behind the words: the coherence, truth, and
appropriateness of what is being communicated; the truthfulness and qualification of the speaker;
79
and the authenticity of expressions of feeling. We must become critically reflective of the
assumptions of the person communicating” (p.9). When people with different perspectives and
experiences come together with an orientation to learn and reach new understanding through
conversation, sharing their thoughts, experiences, questions, and learning’s, they create the
Argyris (1992) posits that everyone develops a theory of action, a set of rules that we use
to design and implement our own behavior so as to understand the behaviors of others. “With the
intention of making meaning together, we can learn to talk together in new ways that encourage
reflection on beliefs and assumptions, and invite multiple perspectives” (Argyris, 1992, p.103).
The challenge is that most people are not fully aware of the beliefs and assumptions behind their
theories of action and thus unable to recognize the gap between their espoused theories and their
theories in action (Argyris, 1991). Argyris (1974) describes a key factor in supporting individual
and organizational learning as the ability to move from the more common single loop learning,
correcting a problem and making appropriate changes to continue down the predetermined path,
to double loop learning, questioning the underlying assumptions of the path and the thinking that
Through dialogue and discussion, the flow of meaning is broadened and deepened and
participants’ preconceived assumptions and beliefs become altered. One is “shaken” and
fusion of horizons, an enlargement of our own horizon (my world) through understanding that
which is different, giving us the ability to co-create our world. The communicative act of
80
dialogue is transformative on an individual level. It creates an opportunity for shared meaning
and action.
Southern (2005), drawing on the work of Habermas, proposes a model that can be
understood by placing communication within the world of language and action. Collaborative
organizations change when they are exposed to partners with different assumptions and methods
of working (Mayo, 1997). Transformative learning requires deep shifts in our frame of reference.
Transformation implies:
In addition, transformation implies accepting the results as a test of validity until new
perspectives, evidence, or arguments are encountered and validated through discourse as yielding
better judgment (Mezirow, 2000). These also involve what Bellah (1985) and others refer to as
“democratic habits of the heart”: respect for others, self-respect, willingness to accept
responsibility for the common good, willingness to welcome diversity and to approach others
with openness. Deep dialogue includes an emphasis on active listening, domination is absent,
reciprocity and cooperation are prominent, and judgment is withheld until one empathically
81
understands another’s point of view. Empathy is a central feature in the development of
people but also the written word, ideas, even impersonal objects” (Belenky, 1986, pp. 143-146).
values, truth, and trust are met in conversation (Southern, 2005). In any process of
communication two translations occur. The sender must translate the conceptualization in his
mind into a symbol. The receiver must translate that symbol into a conceptualization in his
mind. The sender assumes all too readily that the sent and returned symbol will remain
undisturbed. It might be argued that word meanings are more precise where communications
deal with content that is specific and practical. This might be true if such content could be neatly
separated from value judgments. To assure that the symbols used in a vital process of
communication in the leadership of an organization come through clearly and accurately requires
a sustained system of interaction between the sender and the receiver of the messages employing
those symbols. The more complex the concepts symbolized, the more rigorous must be that
interaction. The process is one of exposition and question, clarification and discussion,
illustration and counter illustration, and the sharpening of the differentiation from other concepts,
this is again an educational process. It is also communicating at its best, sometimes referred to
as “deep dialogue.”
organizations, the leader must not only clearly understand the vast range of concepts with which
he deals; he must also be educated in the precise and demanding art of translating these concepts
into words, sentences, and paragraphs that accurately convey his meaning to his readers or
listeners. Second, symbols and total exposition must serve to activate the responses being
82
sought. Response is the nub of the problem, and response is a very human thing. A written
message is not exact if the word symbols it uses do not translate into identical concepts at both
ends of the processes. Therefore, the facilitation of shared meaning-making through oral, face-
to-face discussion is essential. The written message is thus reinforced and stands as a record of a
mutually confirmed understanding. A third conclusion that can be drawn is that communication
in a closed organization is seldom a single act, but is rather an evolving, reinforcing system
encompassing far more than any discrete message. Past messages as well as past actions related
to them become relevant to the interpretation of new messages. Past responses affect the content
of new efforts to gain response. That is why seasoned organizations, like seasoned basketball
teams, do better than newly formed organizations, even with better members. A fourth
conclusion is that the values, purposes, standards, motivation and the personality of the sender all
form part of the message. The best suggestion produced by years of observation is to build a
system of interlocking links in the chain of communication down through and up through the
total organization.
3.4.7 Debate
Making sense of the inevitable tensions and conflicts is at the heart of collaborative work
(Cooper & Dartington, 2004). The emergent nature of collaborative work stirs up anxiety and
mobilizes exactly the kind of defensive responses that hinder the process (Krantz, 1990; 1998).
When negative feelings and tensions are not contained, defensive dynamics, such as premature
formalizing of the process, are likely to occur. Stakeholders with different and sometimes
may provoke defensive responses. There is usually limited time for direct interaction and also
limited psychic energy available to foster interdependent relationships (Cooper & Dartington,
83
2004). The essence of collaborative work is to make use of the diversity in the system, but it is
precisely the presence of these differences that increases the potential for conflict. Stakeholders
are faced with challenges to their identity and to their autonomy. Representatives are faced with
the paradox of entertaining a relationship based on equality with partners who differ in power,
size, access to resources, social status, etc. The challenge in new forms of organizing,
that enable anxiety and conflicts to be contained and worked through (Huffington et al., 2004).
confronted by similar challenges. Gray (1989) cautions against the traditional bargaining
processes as they lock parties into incompatible positions, preventing them from exploring
common interests underlying these positions. Collaboration starts where there is a common
solutions that incorporate dual interests. The acceptance of commonality leads to an enabled
participant that welcome’s new insights. Gray describes that process as follows:
reframe the problem and search for a solution that addresses as many of these
that the parties will search for a common definition of the problem and then
generate a wide enough set of possible solutions to find one that incorporates at
Webber & Camerer (2003) claim that our capacity for change lies in “the circle of the
unexpressed,” in the capacity we have to be “in language” with each other and, in language to
84
Managing in the new economy requires not just change in programs but a
changed mindset…. Conversations are the way workers discover what they know,
share it with their colleagues, and in the process create new knowledge for the
organization. In the new economy, conversations are the most important form of
concessions and compromise. Collaboration is a true win-win process. Realities are explored
and presumptions reflected on so that a third belief system is generated that both parties can be in
competence is helpful when conflicts arise. The principles of comprehensibility, shared values,
truth, and trust must be met in conversation in order to enable collaboration. His principles are
paraphrased as follows:
cultural beliefs, and assumptions that influence how we think and what we say.
Shared values are the common threads that bring us together toward a shared
to be open to learning from the other, trusting that we have something to offer and
something to accept.
Anzaldua (1987), an anthropologist, has defined “borderlands” as the place where there
is communication, and where it is possible to exchange experiences. Imagine that someone has
their own field of experience and that this overlaps other fields in a limited way. Communication
can occur only in this zone (borderlands) where there are shared interpretations of words and
85
action and the same symbols are used. Generally, when two people give a different meaning to
the same word, they are not able to recognize this situation immediately. For this reason, the
discussion could easily arrive at a point of conflict. A third person, facilitating the collaboration,
might understand the situation better and help the individuals arrive at a convergence of the two
meanings. The role of this collaborator is to enlarge the boundary areas. A synthesized reality or
organization (see Fig. 2). The ambiguous starting conditions, the challenging role and unspoken
differences in assumptions leads to anxieties being stirred up in the process. Therefore, there is a
need to establish shared tasks and common ground through a conversion by developing shared
norms. The following case study demonstrates that in the unfolding process of collaborative
work, both participants and consultants needed to learn to ‘live with the mess’ produced in the
emergence and interdependence, is to develop new practices that enable anxiety and conflicts to
participants working together, reflecting, and making room for new perspectives through
dialogue. Whole system change is possible through deep dialogue. Conversations and discourse
are central to organizational change (Barrett, Thomas, & Hocevar, 1995; Czarniawska & Sevon,
1996). The model emerges from a synthesis of research on dialectic inquiry and the early efforts
to design whole system change processes based on the work of Trist, Rice and others in the
Tavistock Institute.
86
3.4.8 Knowledge Transfer
“Each individual’s tacit knowledge is unique, for each one of us experiences, assimilates,
and learns information from the environment in a different way and at a different pace. Each
experience reflexively triggers different ideas within each one of us. We draw different lessons
from the same experience. We develop diverse solutions to the same problems. Everyone sees
different possibilities for the same venture. Personal or tacit knowledge is at the core of the
unique perspective that every person possesses. More than ever, organizations are thirsting for
new ideas and new possibilities. It is especially important for leaders and managers to create a
context in which tacit knowledge can be expresses and built on. However, only certain contexts
trigger the emergence of new perspectives. This process makes it possible for fragments of ideas
held by different individuals that appear unrelated to gradually cohere and create new
possibilities” (p. 71). According to Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman (1996) knowledge is often tacit
and difficult to price. Further support for the assertion that interorganizational relationships
provide an ideal platform for learning is found in the literature on biotechnology and
interorganizational networks. In a seminal piece on networks and learning, Powell, Koput, and
Smith-Doerr (1996) wrote, "Knowledge creation occurs in the context of a community, one that
is fluid and evolving rather than rightly bound or static. The canonical formal organization with
its bureaucratic rigidities is a poor vehicle for learning. Sources of innovation do not reside
exclusively inside firms; instead they are commonly found in the interstices between firms,
universities, research laboratories, suppliers and customers" (p. 118). In addition, a firm's ability
to learn is based on prior preparation, which is in turn linked to such things as the quality of a
firm's employees, its knowledge base, the quality of its management information systems, its
organizational culture, and the presence of learning incentives. Firms vary on these dimensions.
87
As a result, some firms have a greater capacity to learn than others do. Shared knowledge and
shared language, or discourse system. Discourses are recurrent, codified language systems that
reflect and promote their users’ knowledge, power, preference, and values. As collaboration’s
discourse develops, it reflects, reinforces, and promotes shared knowledge and skill (Lawson,
2004).
Phase II details the stages of the collaboration process, where disagreements and defenses
must be suspended to allow for the emergence of shared understanding and new insights. People
“speaking at one another” will not foster the mutual understanding, shared aspirations, and
networks of collaboration action needed (Bohm, 2004, p.viii). As new insights are developed
both the individual and the organization should then concern themselves with knowledge
transfer, so that as new paradigms are developed they are encouraged to flow through systems
and processes and further generate new knowledge among the players outside of the immediate
activity.
into a mosaic full of new insights for action agreed on by all stakeholders. Mattesich (1992)
poses several benefits to collaboration including (a) complexity and scale of issues make
collaboration the most effective approach; (b) economic realities-increased efficiency, (c) lower
costs; and (d) better service to clients. Creativity is one expression of the improved thinking that
can result from collaboration. Working together, through a process that encourages the
88
exploration of differences, people involved in partnerships have the potential to break new
ground, challenge accepted wisdom, and discover innovative solutions to problems (Fried &
Rundall 1994; Gray, 1989; Mattesich & Monsey, 1992; Richardson and Allegrante 2000).
Collaboration can also foster comprehensive thinking. Individuals generally only see one
aspect of a problem. Collaboration allows groups to construct a more holistic view- one that
enhances the quality of solutions by identifying where multiple issues intersect and by promoting
broader analysis of problems and opportunities (Gray, 1989; Mattesich & Monsey, 1992).
vehicle, and a long term outcome in and of itself. Halpert (1982) describes two types of variables
that provide incentives for organizations to work together: interpretive and contextual.
Interpretive variables involve the attitudes, values, and perceptions of the participating actors.
such as increased commitment and involvement, flexibility and adaptability, and enhanced
known; rather, it must be knowledge that it not yet known, because this is the only
knowledge that is novel. This new knowledge could be vital for the survival and
which new knowledge can be assessed may make possible undreamed advances
89
3.5.2 Second-Order Outcomes
Phillips, Lawrence, and Hardy (2000) claim that IOC can have important ‘second order’
effects that go beyond the innovations and direct connections established within the collaborative
relationship. As organizations and teams interact, and become more experienced in collaborative
relationships with a wide variety of partners and contexts, each organization and team builds its
skills and capabilities in collaborating across boundaries. Collaborative capability is not only a
resource of a single organization in its competitive operations, but is also a collective resource of
absorbed, adapted and applied by means of appropriate learning by many members of a field
(Loveridge, 2000).
3.6 Conclusion
and among collaborative participants. Scholars agree that the development of domain level
collaboration is complex and often dialectical in nature (Zeitz, 1980; Gricar & Brown, 1981;
Gray, 1989). The act of mutual adjustment moves us through a process of perspective building
giving us new collaborative approaches to meta problems. Interactive discussions level to level
train the art of exposition and permit the clarification of meaning at many checkpoints, repetition
builds up a systematic flow of two way communication in which receiver becomes sender. It
makes each sender a part of the message. Communication through the use of discussion, or
building.
This phased collaboration model, derived from the literature, centers itself around people
and organizations. As a multidisciplinary frame it establishes the foundation for the examination
90
of interorganizational collaborative capacity building. It will be used in the forthcoming case
analysis.
91
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology
Chapter One introduced the concept of collaboration and demonstrated a compelling need
for collaborative approaches to solving many of society’s complex issues. Chapter Two reviewed
relevant literature and proposed the need for a new approach toward collaboration theory and
research. Chapter Three suggested a new theory of collaboration. This was accomplished by first
reviewing the literature concerning the systems psychodynamic perspective, and second by
describing a collaboration model establishing deep dialogue as the core of the collaboration
process. This chapter will describe the methodology to be used in applying the newly developed
theoretical approach to analysis of a six year collaboration between the military and Fortune 500
companies. The results of that analysis will be presented in Chapter Five: Case Analysis.
4.1 Introduction
collaboration and also to provide insight into collaboration while refining the proposed
theoretical explanation. The specific types of data include recordings of meetings, media
interviews and articles. The data will then be analyzed following conventional analytic
techniques as well as anecdotal analysis. Content analysis and communication components will
be the primary methods of analysis. This provides diverse yet overlapping approaches. This
inquiry attempts a theoretical integration across disciplines in an effort for a more unified
synthesize the findings of specialists across fields and find and apply new solutions to problems.
92
4.2 Research Questions
The overarching purpose of this study has been to develop and “test” an interpersonal
model that can be used to increase collaborative capacity among individuals and build
collaborative capital within institutions as they engage in IOC. It will use the systems
psychoanalytic theory to expand on prior conceptual frameworks presented in the literature, thus
providing explanations guided by a more aggregate model. This study explores the collaborative
capacity building process in individuals and organizations across multiple disciplines, analyzes
the critical factors and core competencies required to build collaborative capacity, and identifies
key factors that underpin the evolution of collaboration throughout the spectrum of cooperative
activity.
The goals of this study include an examination of both the individual and organizational
aspects of interorganizational collaborative capacity building. The objectives deriving from those
goals are:
1. Establish a basis for understanding the current and future aspects of collaborative
capacity building.
3. Examine the process and competencies of collaboration at both the individual and
organizational level.
5. An evaluation of the preconditions and common pathways found across the spectrum
The research questions arising from the above objectives are as follows:
93
1. What are the key processes for increasing collaborative capacity at the individual and
organizational level?
2. What are the key competencies required to support collaboration at the individual and
organizational level?
and case study analysis. These approaches have proven particularly useful for generating
theoretical and practical insights (Gray & Wood, 1991). The case study is the most appropriate
methodological approach for this inquiry due to its classic characteristic of striving towards a
holistic understanding of cultural systems in action (Feagin, Orum, & Sjoberg, 1991). Cultural
social situation.
Case studies are typically utilized to accomplish various aims: to provide description, test
theory, or generate theory (e.g., Gersick, 1988). The case study gives special attention to
completeness in observation, reconstruction, and analysis of the case under study (Zonabend,
1992). Case studies are multi-perspectives analyses. The researcher considers the actors,
one situation in which case study methodology is applicable. The current study is therefore
provide insight into collaboration while refining the proposed theoretical explanation. Stake
(1995) points out that since researchers often have multiple interests, there is no solid line drawn
94
between intrinsic and instrumental case studies, the “zone of combined purpose separate them”
consisted of interpretive case analysis (Gricor & Brown, 1981; Mattessich & Monsay, 1992).
Gray (1985) also calls for more longitudinal, process-focused, action-oriented research to capture
Case studies are not amenable to the simple pooling of quantifiable data; a mixed
methodology combining quantitative and qualitative data leads to a better understanding of the
variables under study (Yin, 1984; Otley & Berry, 1994). In addition, qualitative data can be used
to capture dimensions for which standardized measuring instruments have yet to be developed.
Closely related to the previous challenge is the importance of designing studies in which “rich
data” are used. There is a considerable need to study the dynamics of fit; that is to consider
rendering it incapable of generalizable conclusions. Yin (1984) in particular has refuted that
previously developed theory. When generalizing in a single case study that theory is used when
comparing empirical results. Inappropriate generalization assumes that a sample of cases has
been drawn from a larger universal set of cases. Yin (1984) affirms that general applicability
results from the set of methodological qualities of the case and the rigor with which the case is
constructed. Yin (2009) suggests that the utility of generalizations of the findings resulting from
95
the single case study derives from the analytical, not the statistical. generalization. Yin (1994)
also points out that generalization of results, from either single or multiple designs, is made to
theory and not to populations. He goes on to state that, “…the goal is to practice sound research
while capturing both the phenomenon (the real life event) and its context (the natural settings)”
Participant observation and the analysis of documents and records in written, audio and
video format will be utilized in this case analysis. According to Khator and Brunson (2001),
subject being studied, usually over a long period of time, the researcher is presumed to gain
understanding, perhaps more deeply than could be obtained, for example, by questionnaire items.
Arguments in favor of this method include reliance on first-hand information, high face validity
of data, and reliance on relatively simple and inexpensive methods. The downside of participant
effects (observation may distort the observed behavior). Potential threats to validity in this study
are mitigated through triangulation of data and by using other participants to read and comment
opportunity for in-depth systematic study of a particular group or activity. A key distinguishing
feature of this method is that the observer’s own experience is considered an important and
96
legitimate source of data. Data analysis in this situation involves a dialectical procedure known
Using sequential analysis, data are dissembled into elements and components; these
materials are examined for patterns and relationships, sometimes in connection to ideas derived
from literature, existing theories, of hunches that have emerged during fieldwork or perhaps
commonsense suspicions. With an idea in hand, the data are reassembled, providing an
and critically examined; it may be accepted or rejected entirely or with modifications. Not
uncommonly, this process then is repeated to test further the emergent theoretical conception,
Another data collection method used in this study involved reviewing meeting minutes,
press releases, newspaper articles, meeting agendas and handouts, grant proposals, videotapes of
presentations, and annual reports. Information gleaned from these documents was used to
identify key participants, to develop a timeline of events, and to gain an understanding of the
main issues under consideration. In addition, the websites of each of the corporate partners and
the participating government organizations were reviewed to gather information regarding each
organization’s goals and values and available documents relating them to existing culture and
environment context.
97
4. Organizing the coded data searches
7. Member check.
The reviewed documents and notes were treated exhaustively through a careful coding
and collating process to preserve multiple perspectives and assure that all information was
accounted for and accurately represented. Written documents and other materials were carefully
investment. The span of time analyzed allows for a theoretically sound application of the model
in the emergence of a national IOC beginning in December of 2002 and extending through
October 2008.
Within participant observation the decision to withdraw from the field rests on a
combination of factors, including the fact that theoretical saturation (the point at which no major
new insights are being gained) has occurred (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Field work began with the
invitation to participate as a Tiger Team [subject matter expert] member in June of 2002, before
invitations were extended to partners, and continued through the institutionalization of the ASEP
as a program within the menu of Army services provided to families and standardization across a
national network of program managers providing employment and education assistance to Army
nature. In addition, it should increase our understanding of the collaboration process and other
98
In regard to methodological problems, testing and further developing of the model entails
many challenges. First, it is important that the variables included in the model be given an
operational definition. Converging data, for example, provides a more reliable classification of
strategy than when only one data source and one type of meaning instrument is used.
To ensure accuracy, multiple sources of data are used. These include documents, archival
records, direct observation, participant observation and physical artifacts as reflected in the
research of both Yin (1994) and Stake (1995). Triangulation made possible by multiple data
counteract criticisms of potential investigator subjectivity. Yin (1994) proposes using multiple
sources of evidence, establishing a chain of evidence, and having a draft case study report
reviewed by key informants. These methods, along with “pattern matching,” have been used.
Pattern matching is used to link data to propositions. Campbell (1975) asserts that pattern
matching is a situation where several pieces of information from the same case may be related to
4.7 Summary
The case study is a reliable methodology. The literature, while not extensive, contains
specific guidelines for researchers to follow in carrying them out. Yin (1994) and Stake (1995)
have designed protocols for conducting the case study, which enhance reliability and validity of
the investigation. Yin (1994) also proposed five components of the case study:
1. A study’s questions,
99
4. The logic linking the data to the propositions, and
The analysis follows conventional analytic techniques as well as anecdotal analysis. Given that
the researcher employed diverse yet overlapping approaches, a standard set of analytic activities
The goals and objectives of the study were presented as an examination of the (a)
addition to establishing a basis of understanding, and examining the process and competencies of
collaboration. This chapter also presented the choice of methodology as the case study and
The conclusions the case study of the emerging collaborative initiative between the Army
and corporate America are relevant to collaboration theory and the propositions of collaborative
collaboration over a period of over five years fills a void in the literature. In addition the
researchers experience and participation in the initiative allow for insights into the process of
100
Chapter 5: Case Study and Data Analysis
Even though DC was experiencing a snowstorm at the time, a small group of companies
came together in 2002 as then Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki started a conversation about
supporting those who support army soldiers. The Army Spouse Employment Partnership (ASEP)
is seen as the pillar upholding and implementing the guidance of the National Defense
House Resolution 2586, which directs the Secretary of Defense to “seek to develop
Over the next several years, ASEP partners worked together to construct a single strategic
focus on hiring Army spouses. Their combined efforts have resulted in overarching, interrelated
strategies that represent each partner’s unique corporate structure while demonstrating their
This analysis attempts to explain how IOC emerged and evolved within this initiative and
to distill lessons from that case for developing our understanding of collaborative capacity. The
study is based on data gathered over a six-year period, by diverse methods, and from many
sources. This chapter reviews research findings gathered from audio and video recordings of
meetings, memoranda, meeting minutes, and other archival documents to determine the key
processes and competencies required to support collaboration and increase collaborative capacity
in interorganizational domains at the individual and organizational levels. This chapter also
describes the context and setting for this study, and provides an overview of the partnership to
include the mission, vision and goals of the initiative. Significant to the case study is a timeline
101
of the development of the partnership from initial invitation in December 2002 through to
partnership that is mutually beneficial to the Army and corporate America. The partnership
provides solutions to both the Army and their corporate partners. From the Army’s perspective,
it provides spouses the opportunity to attain financial security and achieve employment goals
through career mobility and enhanced employment options. This in turn promotes the retention
and readiness of the soldiers. Corporate Partners gain access to a readily available, diverse and
The partnership goals were established in a collaborative fashion at the first meeting of
ASEP on 12 May 2003. The initial goals for 2002-2006 are as follows:
Goal 1. Increase employment opportunities for Army spouses and resources for
Corporate America,
to partner with the Army during a period of transformation. Retention of personnel was a critical
matter to America’s all volunteer Army. Research has established that decisions to remain in the
Army were heavily influenced by soldier spouses. The majority of whom were women seeking
viable employment. Since frequent transitions and loss of tenure and benefits were a career
102
Figure 6: Timeline.
103
obstacle, the Army determined that partnering with business would be good for both parties.
Partner Corporations have reported that ASEP provides a good source of diverse hires, lower
recruiting and training costs and that control metrics show equal or increased performance.
Corporations also reported that ‘emotional’ benefits were factored into decisions to support the
5.1.1 Background
On 25 June 2002, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) participated in the Investment in
America Conference at West Point, NY where he highlighted Army Spouse employment and laid
the groundwork for follow-up meetings. At the request of the CSA, the United State Army
Community Family Support Center (CFSC) convened a Spouse Employment Tiger Team on 19
June 2002 to develop a plan of action for an Army Spouse Employment Summit. The CFSC was
renamed The Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command (FMWRC) by the U.S.
Department of the Army on 24 October 2006. Throughout this report, we will refer to the
FMWRC.
The partnerships birth can be traced to the Army Spouse Employment Summit conducted
on December 4-5, 2002 in Arlington Virginia (see Figure 6 for a timeline of events). General
Eric K. Shinseki, then Chief of Staff of the Army hosted a reception and dinner for seventy-two
guests from Corporate America and the Army Staff. BG Robert L. Decker, Commanding
General, FMWRC, and the event sponsor hosted a Working Session on December 5 with senior
executives from sixteen Fortune 500 Companies and Army leadership. The working session
concluded with general agreements to four partnership focus areas, goals, key action items,
104
barriers to implementation and a commitment to reconvene in Feb 2003 (Carrasco, 2003,
The first Spouse Employment Partnership meeting was not held until 12 May 2003 in
Arlington, VA. It served as a follow-up to the December Summit. Representatives from twelve
corporations, in addition to Army representatives from the Civilian Personnel (CPO) and the
Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP) were among those who attended the meeting. The
Honorable John P. McLaurin III, then Assistant Secretary of the Army (Human Resources)
chaired the meeting and opened with his personal pledge to support the success of the ASEP.
The outcomes of that session included the definition of the partnership mission, vision, and
goals. The session also established the structure, workgroups, and frequency of meetings.
Finally, they agreed to unveil the ASEP via a signing ceremony during the Association of the
In October 2003, the Army formally signed a Statement of Support with thirteen Fortune
500 companies and 2 military agencies who pledged their best effort to increase employment and
career opportunities for Army spouses. This high visibility event featured a formal signing
ceremony and induction of new partners by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs. The partnership continued to induct new partners on an annual basis. The
partnership also met quarterly from May 2003 through March 2006.
Early in 2005, the focus shifted from the internal executive group and immediate
communication channels to a joint effort on strengthening relationships at the local level. The
participants understood that a strong local level partnership would be the major element of long
standing success of ASEP. In March of 2006, the partners laid the groundwork for increasing
105
locally based relationships by allowing the Employment Readiness Program Managers (ERPMs)
to see the results of their passion and commitment to the Army Spouse and their employment and
career continuity first hand at a joint working session. The ERPMs provide employment and
referral services to military spouses at installations around the world. The partners presented
their initiatives directly to the local ERPMs and encouraged them to increase their outreach to
locally based recruiters. Because of that session, the local EPRMs developed tailored Installation
Action Plans specific to their installation on how they would connect spouses with the ASEP
partners, and what types of local relationships and outreach were most successful. These action
plans were gathered at the national level and used to disseminate best practices. The partners
reported that because of that local focus there was an increase in the pipeline of talent to their
respective companies and a greater awareness of the partnership with the Army through ASEP.
The partnership then determined that it would meet on a bi-annual basis at alternating
locations, with a fall induction and signing ceremony to be held in conjunction with the annual
In October of 2007, the partnership again shifted its focus, launching the ASEP Account
Manager Strategy and Chairman’s visits. Account managers served as primary points of contact
for corporate partners, coordinating efforts that benefit both the Army and partner corporations.
The Account Managers also functioned as consultants. The goal was to strengthen both local and
national relationships and increase levels of commitment between the Army and corporate field
staff. They employed tactics that included assisting ASEP partners in developing strategies and
mapping out their decision-making processes in accordance with ASEP goals. Account
managers also worked closely with partners in their initiatives to hire military spouses and assist
them in uncovering, managing and resolving obstacles to processes for tracking and hiring
106
military spouses. They utilized the following processes:
• New partner and new representative orientations, education, and training. This
• An invitation to innovation, prompted by the question, “What would you like to do?”
This allows for a focus on special projects and tracking partner progress.
• The optimization of opportunities at AUSA, where the partners report to senior Army
transfers, etc.).
• Leveraging individual partner metrics through integrated key messages for media &
institutionalized Army family program. An ASEP Program Manager was hired, serving at the
side of the Headquarters Army employment readiness program manager in Alexandria, VA.
• attainable outcomes,
The partners also asked that the partnership not have too many meetings, and that
adequate staff and funding be provided (Carrasco, 2003, personal field notes).
signed statement of support that pledges each organizations best effort. Best efforts were
significant in such a diverse group so that the partnership does not attempt to force any
organization into a cookie cutter model. Instead, the internally established partnership and
account manager metrics provide a framework and model for new organizations and new
executive from each corporate member and a senior army leader sign the statement of support.
The Statement was fashioned after the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
(ESGR) and approved by Army on 12 August 2003 (Carrasco, 2003, personal field notes). The
5.2.5. Processes
The partners agreed on the work group structure and meeting frequency at their initial
meeting in May of 2003. They emphasized that the partnership work groups would guide the
• Best Practices- to gather lessons learned and incorporate best practices into the
partnership
• Website development- to design a web based process that facilitates the partnership
108
Figure 7: Statement of Support
109
Figure 9: Account Manager Metrics
110
• ASEP Partnership Alley- to promote the partnership at job fairs in order to increase
increased levels of spouse employment, and increased levels of investment by potential partners.
As the partnerships evolved there were a number of practices that were identified and that
eventually led to the Account Manager Metrics (Figure 8) and Partner Metrics (Figure 9).
Structures of collaborative efforts vary widely. The details of the ASEP structure are
shown in Figure 12. The chairman of the partnership provides strategic direction, approves
goals, initiative and programs and evaluated performance for goal attainment. The Executive
Secretary of the partnership is the Commanding General of the FMWRC, who then identified the
To facilitate the strategic FMWRC leadership the Army contracted an outside consulting
company to manage the day-to-day, planning and operation of the partnership. This management
team generally consisted of a project manager and analyst. During short intervals and peak work
cycles, the management effort was support by an administrative assistance or event planning
staff.
Within the partner corporations, there was general participation at three levels. Senior or
managing director within the corporation was usually assigned responsibility to maintain
ongoing participation and reported directly to senior management. Finally a representative was
often assigned to serve in an operational capacity (developing action plans, directly participating
in partnership meetings and reporting progress and obstacles internally within their corporation).
111
Figure 9: Partner Metrics
112
After several years, the individual efforts of the partners began to sift and stick. This was
beneficial for new representatives and new organizations, as they were no longer required to
reinvent the wheel, the partnerships best practices were captured and used as a framework. That
The four facets of the ASEP strategic focus are best illustrated by the partner initiatives.
Imagine Innovative partnerships. This is where corporate partners create new jobs for Army
spouses. These positions address some of the employment challenges military spouses face, such
as limited availability of childcare and transportation by allowing them to work from home.
The Build Mechanism for Targeted Recruiting. This is where most ASEP partners have found
success. The majority of corporations have websites featuring dedicated landing pages and
specialized tracking mechanisms focused on military spouses. These recruiting web pages
outline their commitment to hiring military spouses and promote co-branded marketing materials
Solve Recruiting, Hiring and Portability Issues. Local Employment Assistance Representatives
on Army Installations assist in strengthening their relationships with corporate recruiters through
focused communication and individualized action plans. Partners are also strategically placed in
“ASEP Partnership Alley” at participating Installation job fairs, building on their brand and name
recognition. The partners implement adaptive processes utilizing the phased tracking metrics.
Leadership by Example. Many partners tailor their human resource related strategies by creating
employment continuity programs and career portability with no loss in tenure or benefits. Across
113
Figure 10: How the Partnership Works
114
the nation and overseas, the local and national relationships between Employment Readiness
Program Managers (ERPMs) and Partner corporations served as the bridge to increasing
employment opportunities for Army spouses. Specific strategies employed by the partners are
detailed in Appendix A.
The general functions of the partnership include the semi annual in-process reviews, or
partnership meetings, the annual partner induction ceremony, local recognition for small
The second major tenet of the partnership includes all of the strategic communication
efforts. The promotion of the ASEP branding included efforts led by the Army and individual
efforts to promote the ASEP brand by partners and third party agencies. The partners review and
refine the communication tools used within the partnership on an annual basis to be distributed
for use each spring. The web development and ongoing enhancement of the web capabilities of
Training served as the third major tenant for the Army and the partners annually updated
training modules for corporations, local level recruiters and Army ERPMs in addition to regular
The Partnership Alley concept was developed based on Atlanta based partners previous
co-branding at locally based events called Peach Street. Several corporations with established
headquarters on Peach Street in Atlanta, Georgia had begun to attend events where they would
be co-located, and although independent entities, they would leverage their branding to promote
themselves as a group to increase recognition. Partnership Alley within ASEP developed into a
115
locally functioning component of most job fairs advertised to the military spouse community.
Historically they included efforts led by ERPMs and local Army Career and Alumni programs.
Other service branches and local workforce development programs had begun to utilize the
Finally, Partnership Alley served to promote the branding of ASEP to military spouses
and showcases the partnership of the Army and Corporate America to the local community. It
grouped together ASEP Partners the day of the event to form a literal partnership “alley” with
accompanying signage and promotional items. The ERPMs and partners would utilize ASEP
partnership alley banners and signage. These five tenants grouped all of the functions of the
partnership.
The partnership intensified its efforts and extended invitations to other services, components and
organizations through two methods, the invitation of new partners and the development of a joint
services network to incorporate other services. These two processes will be discussed in the
following section.
After the initial induction of the founding thirteen corporations and government agencies,
the partnership members then worked collaboratively with Army leadership to establish an
acceptable process for the screening and inductions of new partners. The nomination process
consisted of four stages. The initial stage consisted of the inquiry. Companies expressed interest
in participating in the partnership via partner referral, the military spouse job search website,
www.myarmylifetoo website, or direct contact with the Army or partnership contact. Each
116
potential partner should meet the established criteria set forth by the original partners and Army
leadership. The criteria include the size of the corporation, primarily Fortune 500 corporations.
The sector and locations of the corporations were also significant so that populations could be
matched with existing Army installation locations and general skills and occupations chosen by
military spouses. If the initial screening criteria are met, a formal application is completed that
highlights past efforts at corporate diversity or outreach to the military community and an essay
that requests, “Why you think this partnership would be valuable to your corporate goals (ASEP
Partner application, 2004-2008). This initial inquiry into coinciding values establishing the
“conversation” or turning together with a common baseline. Following the application an initial
meeting would be scheduled with the primary intention of joining in a conversation on how
participating in the partnership could meet both parties’ needs establishing a win-win scenario on
all outcomes. The final criterion was significant to all of the initial participants, establishing and
Vice President level and a national representative that normally would function as the primary
contact.
The ASEP network was an initiative to expand the partnership from the Army to the joint
services. In January of 2007 the phased approach to achieve joint status was initiated. Within
phase one the partnership leveraged existing Department of Defense (DOD) infrastructure to
relationships. In phase two the Army extended invitations to the Service Employment Program
Directors. This began at the May 2007 Army Spouse Employment Conference and ASEP Events
at the Association of the US Army (AUSA) Annual Conference in October 2007. The final phase
117
was the expansion of ASEP and DoD collaboration to achieve complete integration with all
Services. Figure 11 details the function of the expanded network as compared to the previously
The researcher began fieldwork in June of 2002 as a Tiger Team (subject matter expert)
member, before invitations were extended to partners, and continued until the institutionalization
of the ASEP as an Army family program. Between 2002 and 2008, the researcher served in
various roles to include a Tiger Team member, senior analyst and project manager. Within
participant observation the decision to withdraw from the field rests on a combination of factors,
to include the fact that theoretical saturation (the point at which no major new insights are being
gained) has occurred (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The decision to withdraw from the field in
October 2008 was based on reaching theoretical saturation and completion of the original task,
chiefly institutionalization of ASEP. From the hiring of the program manager in August 2008
through the researchers departure from the fieldwork in October 2008, there was a focus on
The following section of the chapter summarizes key research findings derived from core
processes and concepts of the proposed collaboration model. In the proposed model,
To anticipate the findings from the case analysis, an unexpected outcome was discovery
that there were not one, but two types of conversations taking place. One is essentially
retrograde, and occurs with relative frequency. It is the shadow of “rational organization”
captured by the traditions of competitive economic relations and the pursuit of individual glory.
118
Figure 11: The ASEP Network
119
Rational management is grounded in principles of argument, debate, and hierarchical
control. It was easy and comfortable for participants to revert to these familiar forms of
discourse. But the outcome was counter-productive to the emergence of authentic collaboration.
and non-strident expressions of one’s own. Under these occasions, participants were able to
move from preconceived positions, exchange ideas, and in a dialectical fashion were able to
generate new perspectives. The collaboration model proposed in this study did not anticipate
this finding. Consequently, the proposed model will be revised to better reflect actual practices.
The conversion of individual and organizational capabilities into collaborative capacity will be at
Initially participants approached the partnership with the idea that they could use
traditional perspectives to achieve success. The literature base established the foundation of
Isaacs (1999) reflects on his experience facilitating a series of dialogue sessions with an
objective to create a seamless system of health care. He introduces the experience by sharing
that dialogue as a process not only, “raises the level of shared thinking, it impacts how people
act, and in particular how they act together (Isaacs, 1999, p.22).
The ASEP initiative is in this respect common to his experience. He goes on to share that
over the course of a year and a half the voice of the collective had shifted from one of, “polite
competitors to willing collaborators.” Most participants agreed that this could not have even been
conceived prior to the dialogue sessions, when asked what had changed as a result of the
120
dialogue, they answered, “everything- a sea of change in the ways people saw one another and
In the same respect, over a period of several years, it was possible to identify and
measure common stages and efforts experienced by the partners. Led by partner members, the
initiative developed a phased metric approach to solutions. This matrix honored the uniqueness
and respected each partners individual efforts at pledging their, “best efforts to increase
employment opportunities for Army spouses and resources for Corporate America” (ASEP
to offer a “Menu of Services” to Partners to help them advance to successively higher Phases.
Account Managers also looked to Partners in Phases Three and Four for best practices
(processes, programs, initiatives) that could be packaged as a model for other Partners to utilize.
This effort and many of the identified best practices of the partnership could be directly related to
the initial goals developed in the first working session in 2002, several years later. This also has
Most people living today do not recall how to create meaningful conversations.
We do not easily recall traditions of speaking together- ones that might enable us
understanding. Sometimes we know thinks click when people talk, but more often
This initiative helps us to develop insight beyond those pre-conditions and begin to look
more deeply into the collaborative process. We begin just beyond the initial invitation to the first
conversations allowing us to look deeply into the conversion stage just prior to the outcomes of
collaboration. The key themes from the research lead us to a review of the dialect found at each
121
of the three levels of participation. These levels occur at the executive, director/manager and
operational level. They are the genesis of the conversion of conversation to deep dialogue.
Following the key themes, the major findings are presented in the form of a metaphor. The
Spindling Process is discussed as an image for the unfolding of Collaborative Capacity. Finally,
The turning together of participants took place at all three levels of the partnership including
and support. The process of turning together was distinct for each level. The following
description of these levels detail occurrences of distinct dialogue and collaborative capacity
development.
At the senior executive level, the case study provided few examples of true collaborative
dialogue. The majority of the participants at the senior level used dialogue that sanctioned
existing or ongoing efforts in addition to expressing gratitude for participation and the
allows for those corporations and participants to develop inside knowledge and drive change in a
direction that is key to their business and altruistic interests. An example of that climate is the
chair’s intent. At the October 2007 meeting this is expressed by the Chair’s opening remarks,
I often talk about that it is a partnership; every partner needs to get something
out of the relationship not just the spouse, but the companies as well. I think that
you do. You are now part of the fabric of the all-volunteer army. You are now
122
Figure 12: ASEP Structure
123
part of that enterprise that helps recruit and retain the all-volunteer force. I
thought it was important to let you know. I think that sometimes in the business of
running your companies you lose sight of the fact that you are doing something
wonderful not just for the company but also for the country and I thank you very
Another example of the sanctioning and generating continued commitment can be found in the
following example where the Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey (Army Television,
Pentagon MG652) via a pre taped video statement engaged with the Army leadership and the
corporate participants at the partnerships Biannual meeting in Palm Springs, CA held 20 March
2006.
..The Army Spouse Employment Partnership forged in 2003, the result of your
and their families. Last October I had the privilege to attend the signing ceremony
for new partners at AUSA and I had the opportunity to talk to you about the
success we’ve achieved so far…in closing I would like to thank Mr. John
McLaurin for taking the time to chair this initiative…and to you who make this
program possible. Thanks again for all that you do for our soldiers, their families
His words emphasize the Army’s continued support and express his heartfelt thanks to those
spearheading the partnership and the partners. Leadership, establishing a climate and
encouraging continued motivation and full participation can also be seen within the first few
124
The emphasis on the importance of the language, key messages or for some branding
trying to move away from that. We are trying to get people to think
outside their boxes, and so we are trying not to use that old
Cost savings were primarily cited as the key motivator, pushing forward entire
organizations in addition to soft or emotional items and issues related to diversity and talent
pools. However, for many in this group it could be significant that they were former members of
the Army and therefore understood many of the obstacles that generally faced these types of
initiatives. In addition to those key Army alumni, the depth of experience found at the senior
and executive levels produced reflective long-term thinking. It was apparent in the meetings that
an immediate solution was not an expectation; a key to their opportunity to participate was in
building the framework to meet the needs of all key parties. Significant to all players was the
intent to develop a sustainable effort, where differentiation of outcomes could be measured and
attributed to the ASEP. Participation was also encouraged because, “it’s the right thing to do.”
However, it was generally not connected to outcomes associated with win-lose politics and
hierarchical authority. The Chair from initiation to October 2007 in his final opening remarks
competitors. When you think about it we are all competing out there in the
125
business world…even though out there we are competitors in this partnership no
longer are we competitors we are colleagues. How that works, why it works, I
think that it gets back to people. We are all about to taking care of people….We
work well as partners we share best practices we do those things that are good for
Over the course of the partnership, many partners expressed that, in addition to moving forward
on a corporate goal, they had a passion for serving the country and knowing that a greater good
was possible beyond the hiring of individuals for their work-established processes that would
then be mirrored in smaller corporations and small communities. The broad and long lasting
impact of such a broad and divergent initiative was clear in the mind of the leading partners.
The Fortune 500 model allowed the community to observe and replicate successful
strategies. The founding thirteen corporate partners, army agencies, and the new partners that
followed over the years participated for a myriad of reasons many that did not follow the logic of
pure economics. Deeper into the corporate hierarchy we find mid level participants engaged in
At the mid level participants consisted primarily of directors and managers with varying
titles and scope’s of responsibility. These representatives were generally responsible for senior
level participation in the partnership and delivering updates and reports to internal senior
leadership.
At this level, the data shows heavy strategic planning but also the establishment of
initial meeting of the partnership was a working session where the framing of the partnership
126
began to unfold. Those participants expressed passion and commitment to joint solutions
resulting in positive outcomes for all. That baseline of communication and synergy is seen in the
following example.
I think the workgroups have to look at our chemistry and how do we feel about
ourselves and do we have the right talent pool for what we've been asked to do
and we will come back and as our report we'll say that we can agree to disagree
but that we have a shared vision of what you've asked us to do and we'll make it
This level of participants also empowered local relationships by sanctioning efforts, allocating
resources and disseminating training and educational venues. They also established collaborative
representative and distributed to their national local level contacts provides and example of this
offered a short background, critical facts and specific actions that could augment their efforts to
produce solutions. Providing relevant and specific details on how the partnership benefits the
recruiter seemed critical when implementation and formal institutionalization of the partnership
was the primary goal. Mid and operational level participants modeled a turning together by
establishing the win-win and translating the language from one sector to another so that a shared
definition is utilized in text. This was most often accomplished through interagency memo’s and
Operational Level
127
At the operational level, participation is expanded to encompass those with direct
responsibilities for hiring spouses or serving spouses within the armed forces. The types of roles
and participants most commonly found were local program managers and locally based recruiters
in addition to the end user, the military spouse. This increases the frequency of dialogue. In
addition to an increase in frequency, the sharing of ideas and establishing new and innovative
The facilitation of this type of dialogue was primarily enabled via collaborative
technology, locally based events, local corporate locations, and employment offices.
Collaborative technology included intranets, public web based forums and blogs. The internet
and the web based corporate pages also facilitated connections. Locally based events were
The dialogue and inquiries directly from these local level populations at times provided
the operational group with ideas in much the same way that focus groups and formal surveys
provide feedback. An example of this is illustrated in the following statement, where the
engagement then spurs a ripple of new conversations. “It’s the conversations that we have after
you leave that allow us to plan approach in terms of how we can make this a little bit better”
integration of effort between the users, strategic contacts and third party collaborators. The
integration of members from the various levels allows for the different voice’s to emerge and
128
Interagency dialogue occurred in addition to the interorganizational and interpersonal
effort. The Chair recognized that ongoing effort outside of the major strategic players in the
following statement.
We have meetings twice a year, I want you to know that we understand that this
committee cannot work effectively at two meeting s a year. It takes 365 days a
year 24 seven. We’re committed to that, and I know you’re committed to that.
Also at that meeting a partner commented on the impact of that local ongoing effort, “the real
work is done at the local level, not in Washington or where our corporate offices are.”
Advocacy and the availability to promote and education personnel is critical. The
operational level was critical in this task. However, an established timeframe for infrastructure
development and agreed upon messaging varied depending on the specific organization. Those
organizations that dedicated resources, such as personnel or budgets moved along the continuum
faster than those that burdened existing personnel with additional duties. A distinct advantage of
a dedicated full time employee is that person then became the facilitator both within and outside
of the organization. The following excerpts from the May 2007 meeting illustrate that.
It took us a while to figure out that we are all big, you can’t just go from
headquarters to the local level just like that….Companies need time to develop
their internal infrastructure. Then the next level moves us to develop ways to
move information back and forth from the partners and the Army.
In a lot of ways our processes are very similar in terms of how you move
129
As companies have built the infrastructure, done the marketing, put everyone on
the same sheet of music then how is everything working. What else can we do?
Generally, once the partner was inducted it was common to see an entire fiscal cycle
evolve before specific efforts outside of education could be seen as outcomes. Published external
communications and participation at events were the most common effort requiring funding.
5.8 Outcomes
In the final segment, we can see where the actions of the various participants’ at all three
levels combined with varying degrees of time to deliver results. These results relate primarily to
the state of mind or culture of the participant and organization, significant decision points and the
nature of communication.
The decision points within the partnership are not at any fixed time, other than the
invitation to participate or request to consider for partnership. Decision points are however
enfolded throughout the partnership. Collaborative ventures are in constant flux with
Beyond the stage of invitation and throughout the tenure of the partnership, it was
uncommon but not without precedence for a corporation to withdraw from participating and/or to
request that a partner reevaluates their participation. The primary explanation for that decision
was a change in senior leadership structure or a regression back to win-lose politics where
decisions were founded on analytic processes that focused on cost transaction, most often
resulting in personnel changes. An example of a case where a partner was asked to withdraw
follows:
130
As a founding Partner of the Army Spouse Employment Partnership, NAME
thank you for your efforts in helping to build the framework of the Partnership.
corporate structure have impacted NAME’s ability to devote the resources needed
for active participation within the Partnership. We have decided that NAME
would be better served by a local approach wherein each NAME office would
bring awareness to military spouses about available jobs. Again, we are grateful
for the past contributions NAME has made to the Army Spouse Employment
The significance to this form of written communication is that it establishes the contributions of
the corporation and also strongly expresses the opportunity to reengage. A reinvitation is overtly
expresses in hopes that the corporation will reestablish its status as a partner.
The following is a speech prepared for Army leadership by the researcher, delivered at
… The Army knows and understands the challenges faced by our career spouses.
can help spouses build career ladders throughout the range of opportunities
offered by our corporate partners. This is one way ASEP seeks to provide Army
131
spouses with opportunities to attain jobs. Even more significant is the growing
Components of this speech are reflective of a different perspective of the outcomes although the
same, having a different origination. It offers an additional example of the conversion process.
Past research has suggested that collaborative initiatives should have common definitions of
problems. This case analysis presents an argument for looking at common outcomes to
differently defined problems. This joint solution vs. joint problem approach lends itself to
more cooperative and collaborative relationships, the need for skills also shifts- from planning,
organizing, and leading to mediating, guiding, and influencing. The “T” factor traits of breadth
and influencing ability are enhanced as they converge. I use the metaphor of the spindle to
illustrate the spinning of a single yarn around the wheel and down the shaft, where the hook
“The success of this partnership is not only through individual company initiatives but
also examples of collaboration, where good ideas have become reality and made a difference to
132
those we are here to serve.” John P. McLaurin Former Deputy Assistance Secretary of the Army
When visualizing this process imagine the top-whorl spindle. The stick is called the
spindle, the disk on top called the whorl and the hook. The whorl relates to senior leadership
sanctioning efforts, the spindle represents the levels below that deepen dialogue and
the hook is the collaborator that serves as a third party participant, primarily facilitating between
actors.
When individual and organizational capabilities are present actors turn towards each
other in deep dialogue and through reflection they convert those preconditions. The spindling
process that flows from conversation evolves as single intentions are converted. They then
deliberate and participate in reflective and generative dialogue. Those actions spur the
Key collaborators served as a lead thread guided by ‘the hook.’ The hook represents the
third party facilitator, but not solely in the usual role associated with facilitators. Whereas a
facilitator was generally engaged with assisting in managing a process and not the content of the
discussion key collaborators are internal expert resources who manage information exchanges,
while serving as the expert. This distinguishes collaborative capacity, due to the internal
A major finding in this case study, also significantly supported in the literature base, is
the importance of key collaborators. This partnership was afforded the distinct advantage of a
third party that assisted in the facilitation of dialogue, and held primary responsibility for
133
translating specialized languages between groups. Also key to this role was the direct experience
in the cultures and realities of the significant stakeholders. As an Army spouse for almost two
decades and seasoned professional in the private sector and also, as an employment readiness
program manager, the researcher brought direct insight and deep experience to the initiative. A
collaborator is involved in the experience day to day. A collaborator must understand and have
experience in the language spoken by the key participants. The partnership operated every day,
efforts culminated, and “spindled” together at the semiannual meetings. Collaborative capacity
and deep dialogue are not the same outcome that is generally experienced when an off site
meeting is planned and carried out for strategic planning purposes. The climate is forged and the
timeline is limited. Once the off site is over, the excitement and motivation experienced slowly
The researcher served as the primary representative from late 2003 up through the
transition from a project model to the institutionalization of an Army program. As a habit, in the
initial development of relationships with both Army and Corporate representatives I explained
my job as that of the translator between the languages and broader directives to help establish a
common understanding and dual solution. Isaacs (1999) refers to this technique as joining each
person differently. He cautions that each person within a dialogue is different, “each one has a
different story and way to make meaning. Listening carefully to each person and speaking
However, he incorporates a condition that this is significant in the initial setting for
dialogue, in the case of this initiative, unique talk, was necessary throughout the collaborative
process. I would propose that unique talk is a basic contextual requirement to facilitate deep
dialogue.
134
Derived directly from the participants at the first working session, the partnership was based
on cooperation, communication & dialogue, (Carrasco, 2003, personal field notes). The primary
theme of communication was facilitated with its own guiding principle. The establishment of
several foundational operating principles have shown to be a critical factor in the success of this
particular initiative. The former Project manager and researcher operated from the standpoint of
maintaining several Core Values in order to continue a collaborative and participative ethic.
They included (a) Full Participation, (b) Mutual Understanding, (c) Inclusive solutions/actions
To summarize, the argument developed in the body of this study can be summarized in the
following propositions. In ordinary talk, we presuppose a great deal. We take things for granted,
assuming that the other conversational participants share our knowledge. In IOC, we must
(a) Establishing collaboration as a win-win. Although Schein (2009) proposes the two most
common principles as a common problem and dialogue, the case study implies a common
(b) Collaboration is a weaving together of multiple and diverse viewpoints into a mosaic,
(c) All people are communicative by nature, but the development of communicative
the intention of communication to reach new understanding for informing individual and
collective action.
135
(d) Collaboration is emergent. Collaboration is not the prescribed state of an organization or
(e) Relational practices are necessary for whole system change. One needs to create
relational practices among the various levels and members of the organization; such
practices require real dialogue if joint action is to become a reality (Schein, 1993; Isaacs,
1999).
5.10 Conclusion
The location of language is not just central to collaboration studies but indivisibly
theorizing. The case of the Army Spouse Employment Partnership illustrates collaboration
dialogue model.
observer analysis and review of written materials, including meeting agendas, minutes, reports,
and press releases—to identify the preconditions and processes that facilitating the building of
collaborative capacity. Findings from this research will contribute to a growing body of
knowledge regarding the key processes that occur in order to facilitate deep dialogue in
The following chapter reviews the implications of this research and outlines
recommendations for future research in addition to presenting the collaborative dialogue model
136
Chapter 6: The Revised Collaboration Model, Implications and Suggestions for
Further Research
inquiry. We have explored the collaborative capacity building process and analyzed the critical
factors and core competencies required to build collaborative capacity. The literature review
illuminates that popular interest and increased research activity has been a mixed blessing.
Varying definitions, research methods, and practical efforts to deliver collaborative outcomes
have created as much confusion as it has brought insights. We have explored the evolution of
collaboration from a technical rational to humanistic organization (Figure 1, p. 10) and advanced
a cross-sector collaborative framework. We also mapped the continuum of related concepts and
underpinned by the research of the Tavistock Institute and integrating insights from the social
sciences and psychoanalysis. Examining collaboration from a systems perspective allowed the
development of a framework that is aggregative in nature. The theoretical model links between
the trust that individuals have in others, the investment others make in trustworthy reputations,
and the probability that participants will use reciprocity norms in a mutually reinforcing core
affected by structural variables as well as the experiences of participants. It also addresses the
three critical and overarching issues of collaboration, specifically: the preconditions that make
collaboration possible and motivate stakeholders to participate, the process through which
137
collaboration occurs, and the outcomes of the collaboration. These theoretical concepts and
preconditions frame the thesis, where conversation serves as the nexus within IOC. Muddling
through a problem domain with multiple stakeholders underpins collaboratives and establishes
The core question we have explored throughout this investigation is the relationship
Collaborative capacity includes the development of ways to build and strengthen relationships,
an analysis of the way we communicate with one another, and cultural characteristics that
support collaboration. This dual analysis of the relationship between individuals at the senior,
strategic and operational levels and the relationships between organizations reveal the key tenets
the knowledge, skills, and attitude required to achieve collaborative outcomes. Organizational
The previous chapter utilized a case study, building on a rich history of its use as a
methodological tradition and one used sucessfully in past collaborative research. The
longitudinal characteristic of the case study, extending from June 2002 through October 2008,
provides strong substantiation of the resulting constructs and presuppositions. The distinct
experience of the researcher allowed for insights into the process not currently found in the
138
Several major findings resulted from the analysis. These include the significant role of
knowledge and the necessity of engaging in constructive conflict using a dialectic collaboration
model.
varying levels of collaborative talk across the three levels of participation found in the ASEP
initiative. The levels include the executive, director/manager and operational level. We described
distinctive dialectical traits at each of the three levels and how they influence the development of
collaborative capacity. The level of dialectic collaborative capacity seems to be associated with
role expectations, organizational structure and the level of knowledge associated with the
participant’s structural location. A review of the case study findings shows that at the CEO and
executive level, collaborative dialogue across firms emerged when critical decisions were
necessary to sanction existing or ongoing efforts. Once strategic decisions relative to the ASEP
project had been reached, however, the necessity for ongoing collaboration between CEOs was
minimal. It is perhaps more accurate to describe CEO level dialogue as cooperative rather than
collaborative. At the regional and mid-management level the case analysis demonstrated
ongoing strategic planning, and a more active role in the establishment of collaborative dialogue.
The most extensive use of collaboration occurred at the operational level. Two reasons are
offered to explain this. One is the variety of different participants. These include local program
managers, locally based recruiters and military spouses. Each of these groups represented diverse
perspectives and interests. Collaboration was necessary to reach a working consensus regarding
desired outcomes. Second, the nature of the work required ongoing dialogue and collaboration in
order to reach objectives. Such ongoing collaboration gave rise to new perspectives that guided
139
participants at the operational level and were shared upward in the organization from operational
associated with organizational structure can serve as blinders, inhibiting collaboration. The 21st
century has seen the beginning of a cultural shift restructuring the organization to include all
levels of knowledge workers. This shift brings with it ambiguity and frustration, however the
unlocking of knowledge from its established social silos is a necessary condition for building
Noting the significance of knowledge is not new. Four decades ago Drucker (1969\1992)
creates productivity” (p. 150). Corporations have begun to move from a command and control
orientation to one embracing collaboration and teamwork. An example of the new generation of
corporations is Cisco. During his presentation at MIT, “Building the Next Generation Company:
Innovation, Talent, Excellence,” the CEO of Cisco, John Chambers (2009) discussed the
utilization of working groups, pilot programs, councils and other forms of collaborative
interaction. He described his future vision of enterprise-wide collaboration. He also stressed the
importance of the breaking down of functional lines and rewards based on cross-functional
success. The application of business models that bring people together can be seen in many of
variety of platforms and boundaries will distinguish the collaborative organizations of the future.
Shared dialogue is facilitated by an array of technologies. Talk will work with and through
140
various interfaces such as WebEx, Twitter, Wikis, Blogs, Discussion Forums, YouTube,
imagine a double helix where the knowledge and the logic matrices are, “coexisting in a dynamic
balance within the same organization” (Drucker, 1969/1992, p.196). Underlining the idea that
logic and knowledge matrices need to co-exist are the precautionary words of Scharmer (2007).
He introduces his book on the social technology of presencing [readers note: a deeper source of
knowing] with, “the crisis of our time isn’t just a crisis of a single leader, organization, country,
or conflict. The crisis of our time reveals the dying of an old social structure and way of
thinking, an old way of institutionalization and enacting collective social forms” (Scharmer,
2007, p.2) The new world order then can be seen coming into focus as compartmentalized
knowledge decays and disintegrates. In its place, we have already begun to rebuild the new
platform where knowledge moves from the tacit to the explicit, where we invest in the
development of processes that allow that sharing of knowledge across levels, units, departments,
The management of knowledge over time will shape our institutions, firms and
corporations. It will change how we allocate resources, set budgets, distribute power and reward
people. Learning throughout the organization is necessary and transferring that knowledge is
critical to continuing on the path of innovation and productivity that our young country has
within our institutions will generate conflict. Knowledge is limited by organizational routines,
141
individual experience and biased interpretation of the potential value of new possibilities. That
structure is also an institution’s primary method of maintaining command and control, so that
variables are minimized. We stated previously that a key challenge in collaboration is the
defensive dynamics that are inevitable in an emergent process. Strife and dissent, however, can
In the 1930s, Mary Parker Follett noted that the key to any successful organization was
building and maintaining a process that sustained human relationships and dealt effectively with
conflict without compromise. From the earliest days of management and organizational theory to
the present, dealing with conflict has generally been addressed by avoidance and win-lose
politics. Recently, in his introduction of the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the
We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor
shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is inconsistent with the idea that one
should know thine enemy—I’m sorry—it is consistent with the idea that one
should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to
confront the mind of evil, and to prepare ourselves to act with the right
temperament. In the moment, the argument for free speech will never seem to
match the power of the arguments against, but often counterproductive impulses
that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies
The constructive approach to conflict is not to vehemently defend your chosen position, but
rather to see the conflict as an opportunity to be reflective about your own established realities
and move forward with healthy doubt. The collaborative way is to meet conflict in the middle
142
and come out with a third viewpoint, a new realization that neither compromises your position
nor offers concessions but rather is generative in nature. Schumacher (1978) poignantly lays out
this perspective by reminding us that, “Divergent problems offend the logical mind which wishes
to remove tension by coming down on one side or the other; but they provoke, stimulate and
sharpen the higher human faculties without which man is nothing but a clever animal” (p.147).
framework of the necessary ingredients for increasing collaborative capacity within individuals
and organizations. While it was firmly based in the literature, once it was folded over the
longitudinal case analysis it required adjustment. The revised model is a result of that analysis.
collaboration, (a) the preconditions that make collaboration possible and motivate stakeholders to
participate, (b) the process through which collaboration occurs, and the (c) outcomes of the
collaboration. The preconditions and ensuing outcomes remain valid. The model, however, has
been adjusted to reflect the insights derived from the collaborative process and the pathway
Talk as the Work is based on dialectic logic providing insights for interorganizational
analysis of the knowledge base and the process brought to light in the case analysis. A continued
practice of using collective inquiry [the joint pursuit of answers to questions of mutual interest
through dialogue, experimentation, the review of knowledge, or other means (Pasmore, Stymne,
Shani, Mohrman & Adler, 2008, p.12)] by practitioners and scholars across multiple disciplines
143
The conversion of individual and organizational capabilities into collaborative capacity is
at the center of the revised model. This improved model is reflected in Figure 13. The case
analysis brought to light a distinction between the two general paths we follow as we engage in
conversation. This mirrors the dialectic and logic concept previously discussed to assist in the
dissemination of knowledge throughout the organization. The logic and transaction model shown
at the center of the model in a closed loop engages us in debate and discussion. Collaboration,
however, requires the choosing to move away from arguments, negotiation and influence through
debate and critical analysis toward reflective and generative dialogue. Deep dialogue forms from
Again, it is significant to draw on the strengths of this model as its focus is on process
analytical logic and transaction cost analysis overshadow collaborative efforts. Collaboration
requires a distinct socialization different from the command and control climate. Conversation is
complimented with blogs twitter, texting and other modes of text dialogue. The dominant value,
rather than transaction cost analysis, becomes joint construction. The model shows the pathway
from conversation to the first and second order outcomes, moving through deliberation and
reflection. Deliberation and reflection require the suspension of judgment. This distinguishes
144
Figure 13: Collaboration Process as a Dialectic Model
145
The prevailing view of the organization is that it serves to, “keep in check the transaction
costs arising from the self-interested motivations of individuals” (Kogut, B., and Zander, U.,
1992, p. 383). The value of IOC is proportional to the square of shared knowledge. Shifting the
prevailing view from transactions and content to the exchange of deep dialogue (resulting in
knowledge) is necessary to bring to light the value of scale achieved through collaborative
efforts.
This study has important implications for practitioners concerned with improving IOC
processes among a variety of participants. The framework provided in the model allows
practitioners to identify the crux of collaborative outcomes. A culture that promotes cross-
fertilization of knowledge and sharing among all knowledge workers, implements pilot groups,
councils and other forms of collaborative teamwork will be able to listen closely at the quality of
conversations occurring as they may have important implications for effective IOC.
The role of collaboration among institutions that choose to bring innovation to scale more
quickly will make deep dialogue and the process detailed in the Talk as Work model a core
The implications for academic and business partnerships are noteworthy. Academia could
stand to win more industry contracts. The division of labor in academia and industry on research
potentially increasing collaborative capacity within all sectors of society. Talk is the work and it
permeates all boundaries, industries and nations - there can be nothing more fundamental than
146
one-to–one engagement. The uncertain factor is how the talk will move from dialect to the
value of collaboration would also make it easier to answer questions like: What are the critical
factors in setting up a measurement program? What measures should be reported, analyzed and
used to evaluate operational results and relate them to business purposes and strategic
objectives? What are the rules of thumb for improvement? The Frederick Winslow Taylor of the
21st century, however, must look for the right measuring stick. Understanding the question is the
genius, identifying the right measurements for collaboration will require a different colored box.
6.7 Conclusions
within our society’s organizations, the utilization of deep dialogue will serve as an enabling tool
to help bring win-win solutions to fruition. The Honorable John P. McLaurin III, then Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Human Resources) & Chair of the Army Spouse Employment
Partnership, on October 9, 2006, eloquently points out our relationship with dialogue.
“Communication is an art form. You can communicate in many different ways but, generally,
one or two ways are most effective, whereas they all communicate” (Carrasco, 2006, personal
field notes).
Brown and Isaacs (2008) pose the question, “Are we as human beings so immersed in
conversation that, like fish in water, conversation is our medium for survival and we just can’t
147
see it?” ( p.17). According to the Pioneers of Change Associates, in a project commissioned by
Many of us seem to have forgotten how to engage in, and be present to, such
how to talk to each other. Fortunately, as a response to this trend, a number of methods
for facilitating dialogue have been emerging globally, in particular over the past 20 years.
America will forge a new future as old paradigms and symbols of success fall. From the debris,
the future of organizations, the collaborative, will emerge. It will be “the most fundamental
change in businesses and government on a global basis that you have ever seen, moving from
within individuals and new frontiers in collaboration. As the art of talk begins to develop, new
business models will be enabled by collaboration, and increased productivity will be driven by it
as well.
The dialectic model presented here offers leaders a useful tool in the development of the
for the identification of the different types of cooperative efforts offer a shared understanding of
a complex process. This research has contributed to the literature by exploring collaborative
148
particular instance, through a longitudinal case study using qualitative methods. Talk is presented
149
Appendix
2. The Army Family White Paper 1983, Chief of Staff of the Army
3. The Army Family, A White Paper 2003, Chief of Staff of the Army
5. Press and Media Releases related to the Partnership and Individual Partner Corporations,
7. ASEP Web based landing pages, and documents available for download
17. Recorded audio of each of the ASEP Partnership Meetings from 2003- May 2008
150
20. Strategic communications
25. Written Speech’s from senior Army leaders related to the ASEP Partnership from 2002-
2008
27. In Process Reviews for Senior Army Leadership 2003-2008 including supporting
material
28. In Process Reviews for ASEP Partners, 2003-2008, including supporting material
29. Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Resource Documents (available to the
30. DoD Directive 1400.25, establishing the Employment of Spouses of Active Duty Military
Program
31. DoD Instruction 1404.12, “Employment of Spouses of Active Duty Military Members
32. DoD Directive 5124.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
33. Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 88, Subchapter I, Military Family Programs,
151
35. DoD Priority Placement Program (PPP) Operations Manual, July 1998
37. Title 5, United States Code, Section 2108, “Veteran; disabled veteran; preference
eligible,” as amended
38. Public Law 99-145, Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986, Section 806,
152
References
Agranoff, R. (1999). Managing in network settings. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 18-41.
Agranoff, R. & Mcguire, M., (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local
Alderfer, C. P. & Guzzo, R. A., (1979). Life experiences and Adults' Enduring Strength of
Allen, N. J. & Hecht, T. D., (2004). The 'romance of teams': Toward an understanding of its
Alter, C. & Hage, J., (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Amado, G. & Ambrose, A., (2001). The Transitional Approach to Change. London: Karnac
Books.
Anzaldua, G., (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera, The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute
Books.
Argyris, C., (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 99-109.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A., (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Personal Effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Austin, J. E., (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and
Balcaen, P. L., (2004). Working in the Nexus: A new view of school-university collaborations.
Barber, B., (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world.
Bardach, E., (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial
Barley, S. R. & Tolbert, P.S., (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links
Barrett, F., Thomas, G., & Hocevar, S., (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale
31(3), 352-372.
Barringer, B & Harrison, J., (2000). Walking a tightrope: Crafting value through
154
Baxter, M. F., (2005). Organizational Leadership and Management in Interorganizational
Partnerships: Varieties of Networking in the Era of New Governance. North Carolina State
University.
Bendix, R., (1956). Work and authority in industry: Ideologies of management in the course of
Berliner, B., (1997). What it takes to work together: The promise of educational partnerships.
Bettiol, C., (2005). Managing social entropy in the urban development of a city and the role of
Collaborative Capital: Creating Intangible Value (pp. 285-305). London: Elsevier Ltd.
Beyerlein, M., Freedman, S., McGee, C., & Moran, L., (2003). Beyond Teams: Building the
Bohm, D., (2004). On Dialogue. Nichol, L. (Ed.). London and New York: Elsevier.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T. E., (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.
Bojer, Marianne; Knuth, Marianne; Magner, Colleen; McKay, Elaine, and Roehl, Heiko, (2006).
dialogue tools and processes for social change. 2.0 ed.. Johannesburg, South Africa.
Brown, J. D., (1974). The Human Nature of Organizations. New York: American Management
Association.
155
Brown, J.; Isaacs, D., and the World Cafe Community, (2008). The World Cafe: Shaping our
Publishers.
Buber, M., (1947). Between Man and Man, R.G. Smith, translator. London: Collins Clear Type
Press.
Buber, M., (1955). The Legend of the Baal-Shem, M. Friedman, translator. New York: Harper
Burt, R. S., (1992). The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Campbell, D. T., (1975). Degrees of freedom in the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8,
178-193.
Cardini, A., (2006). An analysis of the rhetoric and practice of educational partnerships in the
UK: An arena of complexities, tensions and power. Journal of Education Policy, 21(4), 393-
415.
Carrasco, V. H., (2006). The Army Spouse Employment Magazine, Realizing the Dream: Jobs
in Your Neighborhood, 4700 King Street, Alexandria, VA: US Army Community and
Chambers, J., (2009). Building the Next Generation Company: Innovation, Talent, Excellence,
156
Child, J., (2001). Trust-The fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics,
29(4), 274-288.
Chrislip, D. D., (2002). Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook: A guide for citizens and leaders.
Clawson, D., (1980). Bureaucracy and the labor process: the transformation of the U.S.
Coleman, J. S., (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Cooper, A. & Dartington, T., ((2004). The vanishing organization: Organizational containment
in a networked world. In Huffington, C., Armington, D. Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.
(Eds.), Working below the surface: The emotional life of contemporary organizations, pp.
Costa, A, & Garmston, R., (1994). Cognitive Coaching: A foundation for the Renaissance
Cramton, C. D., (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed
157
Czander, W. M., (1993). The pychodynamics of work and organizations: Theory and application.
Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G., (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
De Bono, E., (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dickson, P. & Weaver, M., (1997). Environmental determinants and individual level moderators
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W., (1983). The Iron Cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-
160.
Drucker, P. F. (1998). Management's New Paradigms. (cover story). Forbes, 162, (7): 152-177.
Drucker, Peter Ferdinand. (1992) The age of discontinuity: guidelines to our changing society. 2
Eggers, W.D. & Goldsmith, S., (2004). Government by Network: The New Public Management
Emery, F. E. & Trist, E. L., (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human
158
Feagin, O.A. & Sjoberg, G., (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press.
Foster, A.M., (2006). Putting the DN work in Context: Engaging with the Community:
Fried, B. J. & Rundall, T. G., (1994). Managing Groups and Teams. In Healthcare
Delmar.
Friedman, T.L., (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New
Friedman, T.L., (2007). The World is Flat 3.0, (videotape). Retrieved from
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/519/ 5/09.
Freire, P., (1992, 1994). The Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New
York: Continuum.
Fullen, M., (1993). Change Forces: Probing the depth of education reform. New York: Falmer
Press.
Gadamer, H., (1994). Truth and Method, J. Weinsheimer & D.G. Marshall, translators. New
159
Gajda, R., (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American
Gersick, C. J. G., (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
Glaser, J. F. & Strauss, A., (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
Godwin, L. and Rennecker, J., (2005). Connecting across miles and wires: examining
Gould, L. J., Ebers, R. & McVicker Clinchy, R., (1999). The psychodynamics of a joint venture:
Anxiety, social defenses and the management of mutual dependence. Human Relations,
52(6), 697-722.
Gray, B., (1985). Conditions facilitating IOC. Human Relations, 38(10), 911-936.
Gray, B., (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, B. & Wood, D., (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. Journal
Green, M. F., (2000). Bridging the gap: Multiple players, multiple approaches. New Directions
160
Gricar, B. & Brown, L. D., (1981). Conflict, power and organization in a changing community.
Hladik, K. J., (1994). R&D & international joint ventures. In Buckley, P. J. & Dunning, J. H.,
& Francis.
Gulati, R., (2007). Silo busting: How to execute on the promise of customer focus. Harvard
Harvey, F.J., (2006). Proceedings of the Army Spouse Employment Partnership Biannual
Collaboration as a bridge from social service to social justice. In Huxham, C. (Ed.), Creating
Leadership, 2, 22-26.
Hughes, E. C., (1936). The ecological aspect of institutions. American Sociological Review, 2(1),
180-189.
Hwang, H. & Suarez, D.F., (2008). Institutional and environmental influences on advocacy
among service-providing nonprofits. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
161
Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Boston MA. Retrieved 2009-03-04 from
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S., (1994). Naivety and maturity, inertia and fatigue: Are working
(United Kingdom).
Isaacs, W. N., (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.
Isreal Project. Iran's president at Columbia University- a transcript [Web Page]. 2007 Sep 9;
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/202820.php.
Jackson, S.E. & Schuler, R. S., (1995). Understanding human resource management in the
context of organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237-264.
Jassawalla A.R., Sashittal, H.C. & Hemant, C., (2006). Collaboration in cross-functional product
innovation teams. In Beyerlein, M.M., Beyerlein, S.T. & Kennedy, F. A. (Eds.), Advances in
Interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Innovation through collaboration, pp. 1-26. San
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T., (1992). Preparing children to live in an interdependent world.
In Combs, A. (Ed.), Cooperation: Beyond the age of competition. Philadelphia, PA: Gordon
162
Johnson, H.T. & Broms, A., (2000). Profit Beyond Measure: Extraordinary Results Through
Jorgensen, D., (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Newbury
Kanter, D. F., (1998). Fundamental concepts of problem-based learning for the new facilitator.
Kanter, R. M., (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kanter, R. M., (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review,
72(4), 96-108.
Kanter, R. M., (2004). Confidence: How Winning Streaks and Losing Streaks Begin and End.
Crown Business.
Kettl, D.F., (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of
Khator, R. & Brunson, N.A., (2001). Creating networks for interorganizational settings: A two
year follow-up study on determinants. In Mandell, M.P. (Ed.), Getting Results through
Collabortion: Networks and Network Structure for Public Policy Management. Westport,
Kikoski, C. K. & Kikoski, J.F., (2004). The inquiring organization: Tacit knowledge,
conversation and knowledge creation: Skills for 21st century organizations. Westport,
163
Kingdon, D. R., (1973). Matrix organization: Managing information technologies. Tavistock
Publications.
Kirke, B., (2002). Problem solving by bridging between diverse disciplines and industry sectors.
Koch, A. H., (2005). Exploiting intellectual and collaborative capital for innovation in
knowledge intensive industries. In Beyerlein, M.M., Beyerlein, S.T. & Kennedy, F.A. (Eds.),
Kogut, Bruce and Zander, Udo. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B.Z., (1987). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kramer, R., (2006). Organizational trust: A reader. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kramer, R. & Tyler, T. R., (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research.
Lasker, R. D., Weiss, E. S. & Miller, R., (2001). Partnership synergy: A practical framework for
studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Millbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179-205.
Laurence, J. & Gould, L. F. (Eds.), (2001). The Systems Psychodynamics of Organizations. New
Lawler, E. E., (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-involvement Organization.
164
Lawson, H. A., (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal
Liedtka, J. M., (1996). Collaborating across lines of business for competitive advantage.
Liedtka, J. M., Haskins, M. E. & Rosenblum, J. W., (1997). The Generative Cycle: Linking
Lindblom, C. E., (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual
Loveridge, R., (2000). The firm as differentiator and integrator of networks: Layered
Mandell, M. P., (2001). Collaboration through network structures for community building
Mankin, D., Cohen, S. G. & Fitzgerald, S. P., (2004). Complex collaboration: Basic principles to
165
(Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 10) Complex collaboration.
March, J.G. & Olsen, J. P., (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of
Marot, M., Selsky, J. W., Hart, W. & Reddy, P., (2005). Research teams in an Australian
Collaborative Capital: Creating Intangible Value (pp. 1-31). London: Elsevier Ltd.
Mattessich, P. W. & Monsey, B. R., (1992). Collaboration: What Makes It Work. St. Paul, MN:
Mattessich, P.W., Murray-Close, M. & Monsey, B.R., (2001). Collaboration: What Makes it
Work: A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration, 2nd ed.
Mayo, E., (1939). Routine Interaction and the Problem of Collaboration. American Sociological
Mayo, M., (1997). Partnerships for regeneration and community development. Critical Social
McGregor, D., (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
166
Miles, R. E., (1965). Human relations or human resources. Harvard Business Review, August,
148-163.
Miles, R. E., Miles, G. & Snow, C. C., (2005). Collaborative entrepreneurship: How networked
firms use continuous innovation to create economic wealth. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Miller, E., (1993). From dependency to autonomy: Studies in organization and change. London:
Miller, E. J. & Rice, A. K., (1967). Systems of organization: The control of task and sentient
Organizational Collaboration.
Morgan, Jr., B.B. & Lassiter, D. L., (1992). Team composition and staffing. In Swezey, R.W. &
Morris, A. (Ed.), (2002). Learning and skills development agency: From ideas to impact: a guide
to the research process. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, (Building Effective
Research).
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. & Silverman, B. S., (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm
Negroponte, N., (2008). Creating a Culture of Ideas. Technology Review. 2003 Feb; 106(1), 34.
167
Nelson, R., (2008). Learning and Working in the Collaborative Age, Apple Education
Leadership Summit, April 11, 2008 (Videotape). The George Lucas Educational Foundation
Integrated Studies.
Nemiro, J., Hanifah, S. & Wang, J. (2005). Striving for a new ideal: a work environment to
energize collaborative capacity across east and west boundaries. In Beyerlein, M.M.,
Beyerlein, S.T. & Kennedy, F.A. (Eds.), Collaborative Capital: Creating Intangible Value
change. In French, R. & Vince, R. (Eds.), Group relations, management, and organization
Nonaka, I. & Teece, D.J., (2001). Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer, and
O’Hara-Devereaux, M. & Johansen, R., (1994). Bridging distance, culture, and time. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ostrom, E., (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action:
168
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J., (1994). Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources.
Otley, D. T. & Berry, A. J., (1994). Case study research in accounting and control. Management
Owens, R.G., (1991). Organizational Behavior in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Page, M., (2003). Leadership and collaboration challenges in not for profit partnerships.
Page, S., (2003). Entrepreneurial strategies for managing interagency collaboration. Journal of
Parkhe, A., (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost
Pasmore, W. A, Stymne, B., Shani, A. B. Rami, Mohrman, S. A. & Adler, N., (2008). The
Pearce, W. B, (1989). Communication and the Human Condition. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Perrow, C., (1986). Complex Organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.
169
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G., (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
Phillips, N., Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T. B., (1998). IOC and the dynamics of institutional fields.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B. & Hardy, C., (2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and the
Pink, D., (2005). A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers will rule the future. New York:
Riverhead Books.
Podolny, J. M. & Page, K. L., (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of
Polanyi, M., (1967). The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Books.
Porter, R. H., (1985). On the incidence and duration of price wars. Journal of Industrial
Powell, G. N. & Butterfield, D. A., (1978). The case for subsystem climates in organizations.
Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P., (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. & Smith-Doerr, L., (1996). IOC and the locus of innovation:
170
Powers, J. G., (2001). The Formation of Interorganizational Relationships and the Development
Prins, S., (2006). The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research: Making sense of
Rackham, N., Friedman, L.G. & Ruff, R., ((1996). Getting Partnering right: How market leaders
Rao, H., Morrill, C. & Zald, M., (2000). Power plays: Social movements, collective action, and
Rentsch, J.R. & Hall, R. J., (1994). Members of great teams think alike: A model of the
Richardson, W. C. & Allegrante, J. P., (2000). Shaping the Future of Health through Global
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H., (1994). Development processes of cooperation in inter-
Roethlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W. J., (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA:
171
Rogers, D. L. & Whetten, D. A., (1982). Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research,
and Implementation. Des Moines, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.
Scharmer, O.C., (2007). Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges. Cambridge, MA: The
Schein, E. H., (2009). Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help. San Francisco, California:
Berrett-Koehler.
Schumacher, E. F. (1978). A Guide for the perplexed. New York, NY: Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc.
Scott, R. W., (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, R. W., (2001). Institutions and Organizations, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Scott, R.W. & Meyer, J. W., (1983). The organization of societal sectors. In W.W. Powell & P.J.
172
Scott, W. G. & Mitchell, T. R., (1976). Organization Theory, 3rd ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
VIII(1).
Selznick, P., (1948). Foundation of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review,
13(1), 25-35.
Senge, P. M., (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art of Practice of The Learning Organization.
Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J. & Ashford, S. J., (1995). Intra- and inter-organizational cooperation:
Beyerlein, S.T. & Kennedy, F.A. (Eds.), Collaborative Capital: Creating Intangible Value,
Stake, R. E., (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stauffer, T.M., (1981). Competition and cooperation in American higher education. American
Council on Education.
Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Erlich, D., Bucher, R. & Sabsin, M., (1963). The hospital and its
negotiated order. In Friedson, E. (Ed.), The Hospital in Modern Society. New York:
Macmillan.
173
Sullivan, B. A., Snyder, M., Sullivan, J. L. & Chapp, C., (2008). The political psychology of
cooperation: Synthesis and prospects. In Sullivan, B. A, Snyder, M. & Sullivan, J. L., (Eds.),
Blackwell Publishing.
Taylor, F. W., (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York & London: Harper &
Brothers Publishers.
Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B., & Geran, J., (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the
Tenkasi, R. R. V. & Hay, G. W., (2008). Following the second legacy of Aristotle: The scholar-
Stymne, B. & Adler, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Collaborative Management Research (pp. 49-
Thomas, K., (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In Dunnette, M. D. &
Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Individual and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed. Palo
Thomson, A. M., (2001). Collaboration: meaning and measurement. School of Public and
Trist, E., (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains.
174
Trist, E. & Murray, H., (1990). The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock
Pennsylvania Press.
Vansina, L., (2004). The art of reviewing. In Amado, G. & Vansina, L. (Eds.), The Transitional
Vygotsky, L. S., (1934). Thought and Language. Hanfmann, E. & Vakar, G. (Translators).
Warren, R. L., (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative
Warren, R. L., (1977). Social change and human purpose: Toward understanding and action.
57(5):396-410.
Weber, Max, (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Webber, R. A. & Camerer, C. F., (2003). Cultural conflict and merger failure: An experimental
Weick, K. E., (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wenger, E., (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2),
225-246.
Wood, D. J. & Gray, B., (1991). Towards a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of
Yin, R.K., (1994). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Yin, R. K., (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Zeitz, G., (1980). Interorganizational dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 72-88.
Zonabend, F., (1992). The monograph in European ethnology. Current Sociology, 40(1), 49-60.
176
Vita
A Texas native, Mrs. Carrasco earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology
from the University of Maryland. She earned her Master’s Degree in Human Relations from the
Mrs. Carrasco most recently served as the project manager and senior analyst for the
Army Spouse Employment Partnership (ASEP) from 2002 though 2008. A national initiative
between corporate partners and the United States Army the partnership facilitates the
employment of Army spouses to the mutual benefit of the Army and corporate America. It marks
a significant milestone for Army spouses and the promise by the Army to facilitate corporate
efforts to access, develop, recruit and hire from a talented, diverse labor pool: Army spouses.
Mrs. Carrasco previously served as the Manager of Business and Industry Partnerships
for WORKFORCE ONE, bringing with her experience in recruiting, marketing, training and
educational and vocational guidance. In this position, she managed all of the activities of the
Industry Action Groups (IAG) within WORKFORCE ONE, which included Construction and
Trades, Technology, Manufacturing and Health care. The primary purpose of the IAGs are to
provide employers within the Greater Richmond a forum in which to communicate workforce
education and training needs, with the ultimate goal of providing the Richmond area a viable
Mrs. Carrasco has headed her own career-consulting firm. In a previous position, she was
the program manager for the Employment Readiness Program, under the Department of the
Army, where she provided career services for trailing spouses coming to Ft. Lee, Virginia.
(VCDA) and former founding board member of the Virginia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
177
During her career, Mrs. Carrasco has made a number of presentations at local and state
conferences. Her articles have appeared in local publications, magazines and the Career
178